-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Maryland game to be exclusively on Peacock streaming - additional subscription required
- Thread starter huskrthill
- Start date
Pal didn’t you know the planets revolve around Husker football?
Post of the year!
decline....
Pal when you’re raking leaves be careful and don’t fall out of the tree.
It is good but that episode was just stupid
The Ohio St Purdue was also on Peacock.
I am Shocked that this game being on Peacock would cause as much belly-aching and consternation as it has! Either pay the $6 or not. It's not worth getting all steamed up like some folks are, "Principle" or not. Like you, I will pay the six bucks cause I enjoy watching Big Red and immediately cancel afterward. Only getting 12 games to watch and then once the season is over, having to wait 8 months before the next game makes paying the $6 well worth it. I might even splurge and Door Dash some Wendys or Zaxbys!
Get me the double cheese....no onions!
Agreed. Traditional cable and satellite providers are looking to cut costs because they are losing subscribers to streaming packages, but the big networks are pushing back and demanding more from the providers. They see their streaming revenue rising, which gives them both financial and customer leverage over providers since customers have an option, and if they have to pay to distribute and support their own content to an increasing extent, why keep giving Comcast and DirecTV a break?
Some providers have allowed rights deals to expire with major media conglomerates (DirecTV, for one, had lost Fox, CBS and affiliated channels by the time I ended my subscription to DirecTV Stream earlier this year) as a consequence, which drives even more customers away.
As a consequence, we're likely going to start seeing fewer all-encompassing media rights deals, and more multi-partner setups. The revenue loss from cord cutters has to be recouped somehow, and operating their own streaming platform is how most networks and cable channels are doing it, but that costs more than letting Comcast or DirecTV handle the distribution and end user support end of things, so they need to save money somewhere.
As a result, media rights deals from a single source are likely to be much smaller than in the past. So, if a sport or content creator wants to continue pulling in the same $, they're going to have to sell the rights in more piecemeal fashion. Likely they'll have to do this even if they aren't able to get the same total amount of $.
It's not necessarily the best example when comparing to the financial beast that is NCAA football, but recently the NWSL negotiated a new media rights deal effective next year. Previously, they were getting 1.5 million/year from CBS and all games were on one CBS-owned platform or another, and if you had cable the only subscription you needed was Paramount+. Their new deal is for "low eight digits" so approx. $15 million range, or about ten times what they got before, which seems good. But to get there they had to deal with four partners - ESPN, Amazon, Scripps (ION, ION+, etc) and CBS.
College football draws in money several orders of magnitude greater than that in viewers, which generates more subscription revenue and advertising dollars, but they also ask for a lot more money in return. I suspect we will be heading for a future where you will need to either pay a lot of money for a streaming service that gives you everything (I pay $120/month including fees for Fubo) or cobble together a package of multiple smaller streaming services. And even with my Fubo sub, I still need BTN and ESPN+ (mercifully included with my Verizon package) to see all Nebraska sports.
That Peacock could be one of those additional partners in a multi-partner rights negotiation with the Big 10 is entirely possible. The good news is, unlike how I used to sarcastically put it when I worked as a third-party supporting Comcast many years ago, you can get your TV a la carte. And, you can watch a hell of a lot more than before - including other subscriptions I have, I get everything Big 10 and pretty much all college football, 90% of MLB and NFL, every pro tennis tournament and a ton of professional soccer.
The bad news is it costs a lot more. Even if you aren't as crazy as I am, if you want all Big 10 football you will need a streaming service that costs at least $70/month (Sling Orange + Sling Blue + Sports Add-On will get you most of the way there), plus $10 for BIG+ and, probably in the future, $6-$15 for Peacock or something similar. Add in decent internet service of around $90/month, plus taxes and fees and you are at $200. You can generally get a cheaper package, for at least a year, for 75% of that from a traditional cable provider.
Eventually, even further into the future, I predict that people will stop subscribing to so many services as prices continue to rise or simply not subscribe at all, which will eventually cause different streaming platforms to coalesce into more and more package deals, some of them hooking up with Hulu, Youtube, Fubo, etc. Other new platforms may form out of smaller ones (Big 10/SEC/Big 12/ACC all come together in support of peace, harmony, and big piles of money?). We'll end up where we started, just streaming over the net - and maybe more content than before, assuming that survives the eventual culling of services - instead of over traditional cable or satellite.
Apologies for the length - I have a lot of thoughts about this subject, lol...
Last edited:
If ESPN decides to take their content direct to streaming, it’s all over for the cable companies. Iger made a veiled comment earlier this year to shareholders and everyone soiled themselves. I am not sure they will do it 100% streaming because it would cost a hell of a lot more that $6. They could be as high as $40. ESPN currently is the highest fee per subscriber over all other networks.
But we will absolutely see more of this, not less.
But we will absolutely see more of this, not less.
