One of the saddest things moving forward is the distinct possibility that MU will not be featured on any nationally televised games next year. Over the years, the numerous national games on Fox, CBS and now NBC have provided visibility to the University and the team, with the University gaining national recognition. Included in this are the MU's promotional videos, like last and this year's commercial, which show the female student shaking hands. Even though it is a dumb promo (yeah, I am going to Marquette because students shake hands), it is still national publicity for MU. Recruiting also comes into play, with potential high school recruits watching the games.
This year's national games have been complete, embarrassing blowouts.
It reminds me of Georgetown. Last week I noticed that the Georgetown/SJU game was on FS1 and that game was a mainstay on CBS for years. I don't know if the second rematch is national, but doubt it. I just would hate to see the old MU rivalries games being flexed/moved to Peacock and ESPN Plus.
Am I thinking wrong? Do the MU Board, executives appreciate the national games and then not having the exposure making negative vibes?
A game on FS1 is on "national television."
Quote from: nyg on January 04, 2026, 05:26:52 PMIncluded in this are the MU's promotional videos, like last and this year's commercial, which show the female student shaking hands. Even though it is a dumb promo (yeah, I am going to Marquette because students shake hands), it is still national publicity for MU.
Shaking hands is also our primary basketball recruiting pitch.
Quote from: Jay Bee on January 04, 2026, 06:39:48 PMShaking hands is also our primary basketball recruiting pitch.
And basketball defense. ;)
Quote from: SOSW on January 04, 2026, 05:55:14 PMA game on FS1 is on "national television."
you knew what the boomer meant.
Quote from: nyg on January 04, 2026, 05:26:52 PMOne of the saddest things moving forward is the distinct possibility that MU will not be featured on any nationally televised games next year. Over the years, the numerous national games on Fox, CBS and now NBC have provided visibility to the University and the team, with the University gaining national recognition. Included in this are the MU's promotional videos, like last and this year's commercial, which show the female student shaking hands. Even though it is a dumb promo (yeah, I am going to Marquette because students shake hands), it is still national publicity for MU. Recruiting also comes into play, with potential high school recruits watching the games.
This year's national games have been complete, embarrassing blowouts.
It reminds me of Georgetown. Last week I noticed that the Georgetown/SJU game was on FS1 and that game was a mainstay on CBS for years. I don't know if the second rematch is national, but doubt it. I just would hate to see the old MU rivalries games being flexed/moved to Peacock and ESPN Plus.
Am I thinking wrong? Do the MU Board, executives appreciate the national games and then not having the exposure making negative vibes?
losing creates a long list of items that need to be considered when it comes to who the Captain of the ship is. Your thoughts/sentiments are legit and should be added to that list.
Quote from: #UnleashMalik on January 04, 2026, 07:37:42 PMyou knew what the boomer meant.
Yes. But I know the boomer is misunderstanding the importance of network television for these things.
Sadly, truTV and ESPN+ may be the norm.
Quote from: SOSW on January 04, 2026, 08:01:22 PMYes. But I know the boomer is misunderstanding the importance of network television for these things.
Boomer, ok? Don't get it, I don't need anyone speaking for me, but my op was a legitimate question and of course someone like yourself has to intervene with micro sideway analysis. I fully comprehend the importance of national TV coverage.
National tv definition to myself and probably 99% of posters here, and for the sole purpose of this discussion is Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC. FS1 is not even close to viewership and is a subsidiary of FOX Sports.
Quote from: nyg on January 04, 2026, 08:50:07 PMBoomer, ok? Don't get it, I don't need anyone speaking for me, but my op was a legitimate question and of course someone like yourself has to intervene with micro sideway analysis. I fully comprehend the importance of national TV coverage.
National tv definition to myself and probably 99% of posters here, and for the sole purpose of this discussion is Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC. FS1 is not even close to viewership and is a subsidiary of FOX Sports.
FS1 is literally national television. The importance of games being on a network went away in about 1995.
Quote from: nyg on January 04, 2026, 05:26:52 PMOne of the saddest things moving forward is the distinct possibility that MU will not be featured on any nationally televised games next year. Over the years, the numerous national games on Fox, CBS and now NBC have provided visibility to the University and the team, with the University gaining national recognition. Included in this are the MU's promotional videos, like last and this year's commercial, which show the female student shaking hands. Even though it is a dumb promo (yeah, I am going to Marquette because students shake hands), it is still national publicity for MU. Recruiting also comes into play, with potential high school recruits watching the games.
This year's national games have been complete, embarrassing blowouts.
It reminds me of Georgetown. Last week I noticed that the Georgetown/SJU game was on FS1 and that game was a mainstay on CBS for years. I don't know if the second rematch is national, but doubt it. I just would hate to see the old MU rivalries games being flexed/moved to Peacock and ESPN Plus.
Am I thinking wrong? Do the MU Board, executives appreciate the national games and then not having the exposure making negative vibes?
A boomer who still thinks anyone under the age of 40 still cares about network television. Half of them don't know what a network is. Recruits and kids thinking about going to MU are unimpressed unless Big East games are on Prime or Netflix.
Oh, every game in the last 12 to 15 years has been a "national" game.
Time for warm milk and bed, Grampa.
Quote from: nyg on January 04, 2026, 08:50:07 PMNational tv definition to myself and probably 99% of posters here, and for the sole purpose of this discussion is Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC. FS1 is not even close to viewership and is a subsidiary of FOX Sports.
To repeat what I said above ... "national TV" is now Prime, Amazon, or YouTube.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 04, 2026, 08:59:23 PMA boomer who still thinks anyone under the age of 40 still cares about network television. Half of them don't know what a network is. Recruits and kids thinking about going to MU are unimpressed unless Big East games are on Prime or Netflix.
Oh, every game in the last 12 to 15 years has been a "national" game.
Time for warm milk and bed, Grampa.
You should compare UConn and DePaul's TV schedules. The entities paying all the TV money still like to put the better teams on their flagship stations. Those flagship stations still draw more viewers. More viewers means more exposure, for the university, for the league and for the players.
Just a few years ago, MU was picked to finish 9th in the Big East and had a TV schedule that matched those expectations. Lots of games kicked down to CBSSN.
Winning keeps you on the big boy networks. Hopefully, MU turns this around quickly so our TV schedule is closer to UConn than DePaul moving forward.
Yeah, this isn't really a much of an argument when it comes to eyeballs watching the games. Network TV is still the better option.
Quote from: nyg on January 04, 2026, 05:26:52 PMIncluded in this are the MU's promotional videos, like last and this year's commercial, which show the female student shaking hands.
which is still better that the previous recruiting commercial.
Damn. Probably won't get the front page of the newspaper sports section either.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 05, 2026, 08:23:20 AMDamn. Probably won't get the front page of the newspaper sports section either.
If it isn't in the Post, it didn't happen.
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on January 05, 2026, 06:49:08 AMYeah, this isn't really a much of an argument when it comes to eyeballs watching the games. Network TV is still the better option.
Only when compared to dying ESPN and FS1.
Again, for all the (ok) boomers ... the sports section of the local newspaper is meaningless, no one listens to AM/FM anymore, and Sports Illustrated is dead.
---
The NFL's growing presence across streaming platforms like Peacock and Amazon Prime Video is significantly reshaping television viewership patterns, with both services outperforming traditional cable and network TV in specific metrics during key events.
Peacock and Amazon have demonstrated strong audience growth for NFL games, particularly on game days, with Peacock's exclusive playoff game in January 2024 drawing 23 million viewers and Amazon's 2025 playoff debut averaging 22.07 million viewers, both surpassing typical cable and broadcast ratings for similar events.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 05, 2026, 04:48:58 PMOnly when compared to dying ESPN and FS1.
Again, for all the (ok) boomers ... the sports section of the local newspaper is meaningless, no one listens to AM/FM anymore, and Sports Illustrated is dead.
---
The NFL's growing presence across streaming platforms like Peacock and Amazon Prime Video is significantly reshaping television viewership patterns, with both services outperforming traditional cable and network TV in specific metrics during key events.
Peacock and Amazon have demonstrated strong audience growth for NFL games, particularly on game days, with Peacock's exclusive playoff game in January 2024 drawing 23 million viewers and Amazon's 2025 playoff debut averaging 22.07 million viewers, both surpassing typical cable and broadcast ratings for similar events.
The futurist who foresaw the death of Apple and the NFL weighs in.
But no, ratings for the Prime and Peacock games were not similar to those on ESPN and broadcast.
2025 Wild Card weekend:
Chargers-Texans, CBS - 26 million viewers
Broncos- Bills, CBS - 31 million
Packers-Eagles, Fox - 36 million
Commanders-Bucs, NBC - 29 million
Vikings-Rams, ESPN/SBC (MNF) - 25 million
Steelers-Ravens, Prime, 21 millionhttps://www.sportico.com/business/media/2025/nfl-wild-card-tv-ratings-2025-1234823897/
2024 Wild Card weekend:
Rams-Lions, NBC - 36 million
Packers-Cowboys, Fox - 40 million
Browns-Texans, NBC - 26 million
Dolphins-Chiefs, Peacock - 23 million Steelers-Bills, CBS - 31 million
Eagles-Bucs, ABC/ESPN - 29 million
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/01/mlk-day-sports-ratings-steelers-bills-viewership-eagles-buccaneers-nba-tnt/
Look at this year, and the last few weeks (and also note that 15% to 20% of CBS and NBC viewers are now streamers, subscribers to Peacock and Paramount+, and not "linear TV" watchers).
---
Amazon Prime: The 2025 Thursday Night Football (TNF) season averaged 15.33 million viewers, a 16% increase over 2024 and a 60% jump since its 2022 debut.
The 2025 Christmas Day game (Lions vs. Vikings) set a new record as the most-streamed NFL game in history with 27.5 million viewers, effectively matching the numbers of a top-tier broadcast window.
---
Also ...
In May 2025, for the first time in history, streaming viewership officially surpassed the combined share of broadcast and cable. Streaming now accounts for roughly 45-46% of all TV usage, while broadcast and cable have both slipped into the low 20s.
Broadcast television (CBS, FOX, NBC) is currently being kept on "life support" by the NFL.
By the way ... this is why the whining about losing broadcast TV games is akin to old boomers yelling "get off my lawn."
Broadcast TV
Viewer age = 64.4 years
Average Income = 72K to 78K
Cable TV
Viewer age = 56 years
Average Income = 88K to 94K
Streaming
Viewer age = 37 to 44 years
Average Income = 105K to 112K
---
Losing NBC games means less.
Losing Peacock games would mean more.
"Dying" ESPN. 🤣😂🤣😂
Quote from: MU82 on January 05, 2026, 09:08:13 PM"Dying" ESPN. 🤣😂🤣😂
From a recent report
(Also, keep in mind Disney's stock is unchanged over the last 10 years, while the S&P 500 is up over 300%.)
---
ESPN is currently navigating a "perfect storm" of structural shifts in the media landscape. After decades of being the "infinite money glitch" for Disney, the network is now facing a difficult transition from the highly profitable cable bundle to a more fragmented and expensive streaming world.
As of early 2026, here are the primary business struggles facing ESPN:
1. The "Cable Trap" & Shrinking Reach
For decades, ESPN received a "carriage fee" (roughly $9+ per month) from every cable subscriber, whether they watched sports or not.
Subscriber Loss: Since 2013, ESPN has lost approximately 40 million cable households. This "cord-cutting" removes the guaranteed revenue that allowed them to outbid everyone for sports rights.
Cannibalization Risk: Launching their full direct-to-consumer (DTC) service, ESPN Unlimited (at $29.99/mo), risk accelerating the death of the cable bundle, as fans no longer need a cable subscription to see the "Big 4" sports.
2. The Sports Rights "Arms Race"
The cost of keeping premium sports is skyrocketing just as ESPN's primary revenue source (cable fees) is shrinking.
The $76 Billion NBA Deal: In late 2025, a massive 11-year NBA deal kicked in. While ESPN retained rights, the price tag was astronomical, and they now have to share the "spoils" with deep-pocketed tech giants like Amazon and NBC/Peacock.
Tech Disruption: Apple and Amazon do not need their sports divisions to be profitable—they use sports to sell iPhones and Prime memberships. ESPN, however, must be profitable, making it harder to compete in bidding wars.
3. The "ESPN Bet" Stagnation
To find new revenue, ESPN partnered with Penn Entertainment to launch ESPN Bet. However, the venture has struggled to gain traction:
Market Share: As of late 2025, ESPN Bet held only about 3.2% to 3.9% of the U.S. market, far behind leaders like FanDuel (35%) and DraftKings (37%).
Termination Clause: Disney has a clause allowing them to exit the partnership after year three (late 2026) if performance targets aren't met. Investors are increasingly skeptical that the brand name alone can overcome the "first-mover advantage" of its rivals.
4. Technical and Brand Confusion
The transition to streaming has created "identity" issues for the consumer:
ESPN+ vs. ESPN Unlimited: For years, consumers were frustrated that ESPN+ didn't include the main Monday Night Football or NBA games. The new ESPN Unlimited (DTC) aims to fix this, but at $30/month, it is one of the most expensive streaming services on the market.
Venu Sports Collapse: The failure of the "Venu Sports" joint venture (which would have bundled ESPN, Fox, and Warner Bros content) in early 2025 left ESPN to go it alone, placing even more pressure on their solo flagship app to succeed.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 05, 2026, 08:35:18 PMLook at this year, and the last few weeks (and also note that 15% to 20% of CBS and NBC viewers are now streamers, subscribers to Peacock and Paramount+, and not "linear TV" watchers).
---
Amazon Prime: The 2025 Thursday Night Football (TNF) season averaged 15.33 million viewers, a 16% increase over 2024 and a 60% jump since its 2022 debut.
The 2025 Christmas Day game (Lions vs. Vikings) set a new record as the most-streamed NFL game in history with 27.5 million viewers, effectively matching the numbers of a top-tier broadcast window.
This is all classic Heisenberg goalpost shifting.
You claimed that NFL games shown exclusively on streamers were "surpassing typical cable and broadcast ratings for similar events." When shown how utterly false that statement is, you shift to showing that viewership for Prime Thursday night games has grown ... ignoring the fact that viewership across ALL platforms has grown this year.
And no, Christmas game did not effectively match the numbers of a top-tier broadcast window. In fact, the Thanksgiving games on broadcast nearly doubled the Netflix numbers (an averaged of 44.7 million viewers, including 57 million for Cowboys-Chiefs).
Speaking of Peacock ...
In an era where record streaming audiences are now routine, the latest Peacock NFL exclusive was not exactly a blockbuster.
The annual Peacock-exclusive NFL regular season game — Ravens-Packers on December 27 — averaged a 3.8 rating and 9.72 million viewers December 27, ranking third out of the four exclusive NFL games on the NBCUniversal streaming service.https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2026/01/peacock-nfl-viewership-ravens-packers/
Under 10 million for a national NFL broadcast is pathetic. For comparison's sake, Texas-Ohio State on a Saturday morning in September scored more than 16 million viewers. Alabama-Auburn got more than 11 million.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 05, 2026, 10:25:19 PMThis is all classic Heisenberg goalpost shifting.
You claimed that NFL games shown exclusively on streamers were "surpassing typical cable and broadcast ratings for similar events." When shown how utterly false that statement is, you shift to showing that viewership for Prime Thursday night games has grown ... ignoring the fact that viewership across ALL platforms has grown this year.
And no, Christmas game did not effectively match the numbers of a top-tier broadcast window. In fact, the Thanksgiving games on broadcast nearly doubled the Netflix numbers (an averaged of 44.7 million viewers, including 57 million for Cowboys-Chiefs).
Speaking of Peacock ...
In an era where record streaming audiences are now routine, the latest Peacock NFL exclusive was not exactly a blockbuster.
The annual Peacock-exclusive NFL regular season game — Ravens-Packers on December 27 — averaged a 3.8 rating and 9.72 million viewers December 27, ranking third out of the four exclusive NFL games on the NBCUniversal streaming service.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2026/01/peacock-nfl-viewership-ravens-packers/
Under 10 million for a national NFL broadcast is pathetic. For comparison's sake, Texas-Ohio State on a Saturday morning in September scored more than 16 million viewers. Alabama-Auburn got more than 11 million.
Now you're shifting the goal posts.
I wrote:
The 2025 Christmas Day game (Lions vs. Vikings) set a new record as the most-streamed NFL game in history with 27.5 million viewers, effectively matching the numbers of a top-tier broadcast window.I said streaming matched a broadcast game two weeks ago. They showed they can draw as big an audience as they just did.
And then I noted that Amazon's Thursday NFL game streaming is up 60% over the three years and reached an all-time high two weeks ago. Broadcast TV is on "life support,"
If these trends continue, jump ahead a year or two, and this idea that NBC games matter will be irrelevant. Because with streaming, they will have 200 national games a week, all equalling billed. Then it will be up to each team to make a case that they need to be watched.
Gone will be producers and executives picking games, which is the worry now in the first post.
Marquette basketball has become unwatchable even to their loyal fan base so we are probably lucky to not be on national tv.
That way the casual college basketball fan can wonder why we have such bad record but they will never see how really bad we are.
Quote from: illiniwarriors on January 06, 2026, 08:57:34 AMMarquette basketball has become unwatchable even to their loyal fan base so we are probably lucky to not be on national tv.
That way the casual college basketball fan can wonder why we have such bad record but they will never see how really bad we are.
I have had casual fans ask why MU is so bad. I told them that Shaka skipped the portal and bet on young guys to fill the spots of those who left and it didn't work out. They usually say 'Oh', accept it and then start talking about how much they dislike the portal and NIL.
Iam sure if you took a poll a the vast majority of college basketball coaches would tell you they hate the portal and yearly free agency that goes along with it.
That said the next question would be do you use the portal and and every coach but Shaka would say yes,because you have to to be competitive.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 06, 2026, 08:42:19 AMNow you're shifting the goal posts.
I wrote:
The 2025 Christmas Day game (Lions vs. Vikings) set a new record as the most-streamed NFL game in history with 27.5 million viewers, effectively matching the numbers of a top-tier broadcast window.
I said streaming matched a broadcast game two weeks ago. They showed they can draw as big an audience as they just did.
Which streaming only game has matched a similarly slotted national broadcast/cable game this year?
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 05, 2026, 09:33:14 PMFrom a recent report
(Also, keep in mind Disney's stock is unchanged over the last 10 years, while the S&P 500 is up over 300%.)
---
ESPN is currently navigating a "perfect storm" of structural shifts in the media landscape. After decades of being the "infinite money glitch" for Disney, the network is now facing a difficult transition from the highly profitable cable bundle to a more fragmented and expensive streaming world.
As of early 2026, here are the primary business struggles facing ESPN:
1. The "Cable Trap" & Shrinking Reach
For decades, ESPN received a "carriage fee" (roughly $9+ per month) from every cable subscriber, whether they watched sports or not.
Subscriber Loss: Since 2013, ESPN has lost approximately 40 million cable households. This "cord-cutting" removes the guaranteed revenue that allowed them to outbid everyone for sports rights.
Cannibalization Risk: Launching their full direct-to-consumer (DTC) service, ESPN Unlimited (at $29.99/mo), risk accelerating the death of the cable bundle, as fans no longer need a cable subscription to see the "Big 4" sports.
2. The Sports Rights "Arms Race"
The cost of keeping premium sports is skyrocketing just as ESPN's primary revenue source (cable fees) is shrinking.
The $76 Billion NBA Deal: In late 2025, a massive 11-year NBA deal kicked in. While ESPN retained rights, the price tag was astronomical, and they now have to share the "spoils" with deep-pocketed tech giants like Amazon and NBC/Peacock.
Tech Disruption: Apple and Amazon do not need their sports divisions to be profitable—they use sports to sell iPhones and Prime memberships. ESPN, however, must be profitable, making it harder to compete in bidding wars.
3. The "ESPN Bet" Stagnation
To find new revenue, ESPN partnered with Penn Entertainment to launch ESPN Bet. However, the venture has struggled to gain traction:
Market Share: As of late 2025, ESPN Bet held only about 3.2% to 3.9% of the U.S. market, far behind leaders like FanDuel (35%) and DraftKings (37%).
Termination Clause: Disney has a clause allowing them to exit the partnership after year three (late 2026) if performance targets aren't met. Investors are increasingly skeptical that the brand name alone can overcome the "first-mover advantage" of its rivals.
4. Technical and Brand Confusion
The transition to streaming has created "identity" issues for the consumer:
ESPN+ vs. ESPN Unlimited: For years, consumers were frustrated that ESPN+ didn't include the main Monday Night Football or NBA games. The new ESPN Unlimited (DTC) aims to fix this, but at $30/month, it is one of the most expensive streaming services on the market.
Venu Sports Collapse: The failure of the "Venu Sports" joint venture (which would have bundled ESPN, Fox, and Warner Bros content) in early 2025 left ESPN to go it alone, placing even more pressure on their solo flagship app to succeed.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 05, 2026, 09:33:14 PMFrom a recent report
(Also, keep in mind Disney's stock is unchanged over the last 10 years, while the S&P 500 is up over 300%.)
---
ESPN is currently navigating a "perfect storm" of structural shifts in the media landscape. After decades of being the "infinite money glitch" for Disney, the network is now facing a difficult transition from the highly profitable cable bundle to a more fragmented and expensive streaming world.
As of early 2026, here are the primary business struggles facing ESPN:
1. The "Cable Trap" & Shrinking Reach
For decades, ESPN received a "carriage fee" (roughly $9+ per month) from every cable subscriber, whether they watched sports or not.
Subscriber Loss: Since 2013, ESPN has lost approximately 40 million cable households. This "cord-cutting" removes the guaranteed revenue that allowed them to outbid everyone for sports rights.
Cannibalization Risk: Launching their full direct-to-consumer (DTC) service, ESPN Unlimited (at $29.99/mo), risk accelerating the death of the cable bundle, as fans no longer need a cable subscription to see the "Big 4" sports.
2. The Sports Rights "Arms Race"
The cost of keeping premium sports is skyrocketing just as ESPN's primary revenue source (cable fees) is shrinking.
The $76 Billion NBA Deal: In late 2025, a massive 11-year NBA deal kicked in. While ESPN retained rights, the price tag was astronomical, and they now have to share the "spoils" with deep-pocketed tech giants like Amazon and NBC/Peacock.
Tech Disruption: Apple and Amazon do not need their sports divisions to be profitable—they use sports to sell iPhones and Prime memberships. ESPN, however, must be profitable, making it harder to compete in bidding wars.
3. The "ESPN Bet" Stagnation
To find new revenue, ESPN partnered with Penn Entertainment to launch ESPN Bet. However, the venture has struggled to gain traction:
Market Share: As of late 2025, ESPN Bet held only about 3.2% to 3.9% of the U.S. market, far behind leaders like FanDuel (35%) and DraftKings (37%).
Termination Clause: Disney has a clause allowing them to exit the partnership after year three (late 2026) if performance targets aren't met. Investors are increasingly skeptical that the brand name alone can overcome the "first-mover advantage" of its rivals.
4. Technical and Brand Confusion
The transition to streaming has created "identity" issues for the consumer:
ESPN+ vs. ESPN Unlimited: For years, consumers were frustrated that ESPN+ didn't include the main Monday Night Football or NBA games. The new ESPN Unlimited (DTC) aims to fix this, but at $30/month, it is one of the most expensive streaming services on the market.
Venu Sports Collapse: The failure of the "Venu Sports" joint venture (which would have bundled ESPN, Fox, and Warner Bros content) in early 2025 left ESPN to go it alone, placing even more pressure on their solo flagship app to succeed.
So ... not "dying" at all. Thanks!