Has The Sports Bubble Popped?

[Tugg Speedman]

What about the NCAA Tournament?

The CFP title game on Monday drew 25.7 million

The NCAA title game in August drew 28.2 million

Basketball's title game outdrew Football's title game!!

2015 NCAA tournament has highest average viewership in 22 years
Apr 7, 2015 14:32 EDT

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2015-04-07/2015-ncaa-tournament-has-highest-average-viewership-22-years

The 2015 NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball National Championship across TBS, CBS, TNT and truTV is the most-watched NCAA tournament in 22 years, according to Nielsen Fast Nationals. The 2015 NCAA tournament averaged 11.3 million total viewers, up 8 percent from last year (10.5 million viewers), and is the highest average viewership for the NCAA tournament in 22 years (12.7 million; 1993).

The National Championship game, which saw Duke defeat Wisconsin, averaged 28.3 million total viewers, up 33 percent from last year (21.3 million) and is the most-viewed NCAA title game in 18 years (28.4 million; Arizona/Kentucky in 1997). The Duke/Wisconsin game earned an average fast national household rating/share of 16.0/26, up 28 percent from last year’s 12.5/20 (Connecticut/Kentucky).

[CTWarrior]

Personally, the games being on the 31st made it so that I couldn't watch most of the games when I normally would have.   I also now care even less about the regular bowl games now that there is a playoff.... I mean, they never meant anything before, but now that there are more games that do mean something exist, they seem somehow even less meaningful.
But I'm just one man.... one man can't change anything.  Rock the vote!

I'm with you on the non-championship bowl games.  They seem lessened somehow.  In the old days, usually at least 3 of New Year's Day Bowl games could potentially have championship ramifications when the day started.  If this teams loses the Orange Bowl, and this teams wins a close one in the Sugar Bowl, then this other team could still be the champs with an impressive showing in the Rose Bowl.  That sort of thing. 

As it stands now, getting to those big non-championship bowls is the biggest thing.  It basically doesn't matter who wins.

[ChicosBailBonds]

One of the analysts at the conference had an interesting slide showing the history of television and then leading into OTT.  A couple of things:

1) He argued that ratings today should really be viewed in the context of what is truly available as an opportunity vs the lack of opportunity in the past.  In other words, with continued fragmentation on television, the addition of OTT, etc, ratings of course are going to go down.  You'll never in your life see crazy ratings again because of the selection available.  His point was, that's ok and should be viewed in that lens.

2) Not sure why Berg said my cable buddies.  I've worked on both sides of this, OTT streaming and on the cable \ MVPD side.  I see the argument very clearly from both points of view.

3) The data shows about 92 million pay tv homes today,  In 2022, the number is expected to be around 90 to 94 million.  Now, the share will go down because population is growing, but the analysts point was that by 2022, television will still be the vast majority of video viewing.  There will be a turning point, but it is still a long way off....coming...yes.  For some, here today.

4)  Sports, no one has the ability to monetize sports where it needs to be except for the current ecosystem.  Now, could that means the rates for which sports are sold goes down?  Sure, it could, but you still have hungry content companies like Fox and others trying to gain share, monetize with ads, etc, that are bidding up prices. 

[DegenerateDish]

I'm fascinated to see the new Rams stadium in a few years. From what I'm reading, this will be the first venue to try to make the home experience in stadium (however that will work, no idea).

[mu03eng]

Had a twitter discussion semi-related to this in that a lot of this is dictated by ad revenue tied to ratings. However, as Chicos pointed out TV has fragmented as well as delivery of content has fragmented. What's interesting is each "fragment" seemingly has it's own measurement standard and those "standards" are not well capture/easily manipulated (page views, click throughs, etc).

Once the non-TV content delivery providers figure out a reliable and consistent way to compare viewership to TV then the fight really takes off. If OTT has a higher viewership, advertisers will start moving there, if not TV will continue to win.

[willie warrior]

Mark Cuban and Greg Maffei are saying the sports bubble is just fine and expanding.

Do you ask your barber if you need a haircut?

It must be expanding. Some guy is coughing up over 2 billion for a stadium and fee to relocate his football team to LA. Meanwhile the NFL is shelling out 200 million to 2 other teams to stay where they are at--with new stadiums. Lots of money being thrown about out there.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm fascinated to see the new Rams stadium in a few years. From what I'm reading, this will be the first venue to try to make the home experience in stadium (however that will work, no idea).

Should be awesome.  Not sure they're gonna like me wandering around in boxer shorts and bare feet, though.

[willie warrior]

Should be awesome.  Not sure they're gonna like me wandering around in boxer shorts and bare feet, though.

Yeah, and going to the bathroom with doors open and sounds to be heard.

[MU82]

would not have mattered.  All the bowl game ratings and even attendance was terrible.  No game or time slot was safe.

College football is over the top and on the downside of ratings.  As I noted before, every sport is seeing sliding ratings except the NFL.


Bowl games take a TV ratings hit
January 11th, 2016 at 8:04pm

http://www.abqjournal.com/704444/sports/bowl-games-take-a-tv-ratings-hit.html


“The Granddaddy of Them All” — the Rose Bowl —in which Stanford pummelled Iowa 45-16 on Jan. 1, had its lowest TV viewership ever.

ESPN/ABC televised 38 bowl games this season. The games had a 2.8 rating and averaged 4,676,000 each.

That’s down from 2014-15, when there were 37 bowl games televised. They had a 3.2 rating with an average of 5,341,000 viewers each.

All bowls this season, except the NY6 (New Year’s Day’s six games), had a  2.1 rating and averaged 3,305,000 viewers.

In  2014-15, all bowls minus NY6 had a 2.2 rating and averaged 3,452,000 viewers each.

Bowl games have always been glorified exhibitions. Now, with an actual playoff in place, they have become all the more meaningless. Even the Rose Bowl has a fraction of the "meaning" it used to have (when it's not one of the playoff games or NC). Add in the fact that there are, I believe, 8,536 bowl games now, and who really gives a rat's rump.

The semifinals were on NYE, a ridiculous decision.

As for the title game, let's wait at least 2 years before calling anything a "trend," no?

[Tugg Speedman]

It must be expanding. Some guy is coughing up over 2 billion for a stadium and fee to relocate his football team to LA. Meanwhile the NFL is shelling out 200 million to 2 other teams to stay where they are at--with new stadiums. Lots of money being thrown about out there.

For the NFL, yes.  But not for anything else.

(Ballmer is an exception, he proved he doesn't understand money with all his stupis acquisitions at MSFT)

[Tugg Speedman]

Bowl games have always been glorified exhibitions. Now, with an actual playoff in place, they have become all the more meaningless. Even the Rose Bowl has a fraction of the "meaning" it used to have (when it's not one of the playoff games or NC). Add in the fact that there are, I believe, 8,536 bowl games now, and who really gives a rat's rump.

The semifinals were on NYE, a ridiculous decision.

As for the title game, let's wait at least 2 years before calling anything a "trend," no?

I agree

But I started this thread about all sports and noted that while the NFL is doing well, nothing else is

Hockey - Winter classic, record low

NBA, Lousy ratings despite historic Golden State team

Rose Bowl, record low ratings

CFP, could not outdraw basketball.

[MU82]

None of this is surprising.

[Tugg Speedman]

It must be surprising to ESPN because the link on the first post said they are paying a record $6 billion in broadcasting rights for a bunch of sports that are generating record low ratings.  It also says they might have to refund $20 million in commercial fees because of the low ratings.

[Dr. Blackheart]

CFB has a clutter problem. They need to go to an eight or 16 game playoff and create an "event".  These bowls are all on top of each other, with the Top 4 playing at the same time as the Weedwhacker Bowl.

March Madness creates an event. There is drama to get in. There is drama with upsets. There is engagement over weeks so fans get to know and get attached to all teams, not just their favorite. There are bracket pools to keep people interested after their team loses. There is sudden death. The brackets ladder up to something that matters.  There is no other sports competition for attention as the outcomes in the regular season standings for the NBA and NHL have long been settled.

[ATL MU Warrior]

It must be surprising to ESPN because the link on the first post said they are paying a record $6 billion in broadcasting rights for a bunch of sports that are generating record low ratings.  It also says they might have to refund $20 million in commercial fees because of the low ratings.

drop in the bucket.

[Tugg Speedman]

drop in the bucket.

See Disney stock crashing .... It means no growth.

[ATL MU Warrior]

See Disney stock crashing .... It means no growth.

no it doesn't

[hdog1017]

Live sports programming is what every network craves since it's the most "DVR-proof".  Sports is the only reason why  I still have cable. 

[Tugg Speedman]

Live sports programming is what every network craves since it's the most "DVR-proof".  Sports is the only reason why  I still have cable.

no it doesn't

You both need to read the cord cutting thread.

[ATL MU Warrior]

You both need to read the cord cutting thread.

BTW, networks don't "refund commercial fees"...they make up the lack of delivery in other future programming...which they plan for and leave some portion of their commercial inventory available for just this situation.  Routine.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Yeah, and going to the bathroom with doors open and sounds to be heard.

They're rebuilding Lambeau in LA?

[Tugg Speedman]

BTW, networks don't "refund commercial fees"...they make up the lack of delivery in other future programming...which they plan for and leave some portion of their commercial inventory available for just this situation.  Routine.

Irrelevant.  Anyone that has to give back money or rebate commercials means they have no growth.  And the chart is what happens when you have no growth, your stock falls 22% while the markets (S&P 500) falls 8%. 

To better understand Disney's problem they should change their stock ticker symbol to ESPN.   As explained in the cord cutting thread, Wall Street thinks ESPN is a no growth, over paid for rights, death star.  That is why Disney stock is getting torched even through they took in $2 billion from Star Wars.  One-quarter of Disney's value has evaporated in two months thanks to ESPN.

ESPN is that bad ... because everything but the NFL is seeing crappy ratings.

[mu03eng]

BTW, networks don't "refund commercial fees"...they make up the lack of delivery in other future programming...which they plan for and leave some portion of their commercial inventory available for just this situation.  Routine.

True, but the CFP was not a routine volume. I posted an article previously in this thread.....the make-up far exceeds the saved ad space in future broadcasts.

So the next time ESPN goes looking to sell ads, the question is whether or not they can sell at a higher price point. I don't think it has a big impact, but if this happens a couple of more times the ad revenue won't be as robust at the same time that ESPNs content costs are going up....not a winning recipe.

[Tugg Speedman]

True, but the CFP was not a routine volume. I posted an article previously in this thread.....the make-up far exceeds the saved ad space in future broadcasts.

So the next time ESPN goes looking to sell ads, the question is whether or not they can sell at a higher price point. I don't think it has a big impact, but if this happens a couple of more times the ad revenue won't be as robust at the same time that ESPNs content costs are going up....not a winning recipe.

See the chart of Disney's stock above, Wall Street thinks it's a big deal.

[GooooMarquette]

See the chart of Disney's stock above, Wall Street thinks it's a big deal.

Not so sure this chart reflects anything unique about the value of Disney's stake in ESPN.  The 3-month graph of DIS looks pretty similar to the S&P 500 graph over the same period.