CFP & ESPN Discussing Extending Contract

[swede2]

Sources: CFP, ESPN discussing new 6-year deal

The College Football Playoff is in talks with ESPN about a new six-year deal to be sole rights holder through the 2031 season, sources told ESPN.

www.espn.com

I know money trumps everything but if I'm the B1G or anyone else with a seat at the table, aren't I bit uncomfortable with ESECPN having exclusive rights to CFP for eight more years?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Yep, bad idea.

Bid it out to multiple networks, and cross promote it.

You can't let ESPN/Disney control it. They have too much vested in the SEC, and for the time being, ACC.

 

[Zeppelin Gopher]

Awful news, but I'm sure it will happen since CFB can't get out of their own way with terrible ideas.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I gotta wonder who is driving the buss at CFP....

 

[MplsGopher]

ESPN wants to keep the monopoly and they have the evil SEC as their ally.

The Big Ten are the leaders showing the correct way of diversifying your media partners. Hopefully they can lead the charge and get enough conferences to vote down the ESPN monopoly.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

key point in the article (IMHO) -

A sublicense agreement was a sticking point that has been settled, according to sources. The agreement would give ESPN the ability to sell the rights to some of the games -- something Fox Sports would be interested in, sources indicated.

Hancock said that if ESPN were to sublicense any games, the presidents would have to approve it.

as I understand it, the way this would work is that ESPN could sub-license, or sell off, the rights to carry some or all of the first-round games, or possibly some of the quarter-finals, while ESPN retains the right to the marquee games including the Finals.

it may not be perfect, but it's probably better than having multiple parties get involved - which could result in some of the games winding up on a streaming service like Peacock or Amazon.

people complain about ESPN having a monopoly on events, but people also complain when rights get divided up into pieces and games wind up behind a paywall on a streaming service.

 

[LuluGopher]

key point in the article (IMHO) -

A sublicense agreement was a sticking point that has been settled, according to sources. The agreement would give ESPN the ability to sell the rights to some of the games -- something Fox Sports would be interested in, sources indicated.

Hancock said that if ESPN were to sublicense any games, the presidents would have to approve it.

as I understand it, the way this would work is that ESPN could sub-license, or sell off, the rights to carry some or all of the first-round games, or possibly some of the quarter-finals, while ESPN retains the right to the marquee games including the Finals.

it may not be perfect, but it's probably better than having multiple parties get involved - which could result in some of the games winding up on a streaming service like Peacock or Amazon.

people complain about ESPN having a monopoly on events, but people also complain when rights get divided up into pieces and games wind up behind a paywall on a streaming service.

ESPN isn't over-the-air compared to the other Networks. Major difference. You're right about Peacock and Prime, but after one year of terrible ratings (like Saturday's Chiefs game), they'll learn.

 

[swede2]

key point in the article (IMHO) -

A sublicense agreement was a sticking point that has been settled, according to sources. The agreement would give ESPN the ability to sell the rights to some of the games -- something Fox Sports would be interested in, sources indicated.

Hancock said that if ESPN were to sublicense any games, the presidents would have to approve it.

as I understand it, the way this would work is that ESPN could sub-license, or sell off, the rights to carry some or all of the first-round games, or possibly some of the quarter-finals, while ESPN retains the right to the marquee games including the Finals.

it may not be perfect, but it's probably better than having multiple parties get involved - which could result in some of the games winding up on a streaming service like Peacock or Amazon.

people complain about ESPN having a monopoly on events, but people also complain when rights get divided up into pieces and games wind up behind a paywall on a streaming service.

I think the article also mentioned that CFP originally wanted multiple partners, like the NFL. Maybe the market wasn't there.

 

[Some guy]

key point in the article (IMHO) -

A sublicense agreement was a sticking point that has been settled, according to sources. The agreement would give ESPN the ability to sell the rights to some of the games -- something Fox Sports would be interested in, sources indicated.

Hancock said that if ESPN were to sublicense any games, the presidents would have to approve it.

as I understand it, the way this would work is that ESPN could sub-license, or sell off, the rights to carry some or all of the first-round games, or possibly some of the quarter-finals, while ESPN retains the right to the marquee games including the Finals.

it may not be perfect, but it's probably better than having multiple parties get involved - which could result in some of the games winding up on a streaming service like Peacock or Amazon.

Or they could simply not sell to peacock or Amazon

people complain about ESPN having a monopoly on events, but people also complain when rights get divided up into pieces and games wind up behind a paywall on a streaming service.

Yeah. But I’ve yet to see a compelling reason to extend espn without hitting free agency. You don’t have to take the highest offer in free agency. You take the best offer

 

[mngolf]

ESPN wants to keep the monopoly and they have the evil SEC as their ally.

The Big Ten are the leaders showing the correct way of diversifying your media partners. Hopefully they can lead the charge and get enough conferences to vote down the ESPN monopoly.

As you stated, diversity. So having ESPN as a partner too makes sense.

 

[Ope3]

ESPN isn't over-the-air compared to the other Networks. Major difference. You're right about Peacock and Prime, but after one year of terrible ratings (like Saturday's Chiefs game), they'll learn.

As long as the check from NBC/Universal clears, the NFL won't give a rip about low ratings on Peacock. Everyone knows they will be abysmal beforehand.

If they or someone else like Amazon Prime is the highest bidder for a future playoff games, more will be streamed.

 

[PMWinSTP]

ESPN isn't over-the-air compared to the other Networks. Major difference. You're right about Peacock and Prime, but after one year of terrible ratings (like Saturday's Chiefs game), they'll learn.

Yep, most the streaming outlets tied to TV broadcasters are money losers.

 

[MplsGopher]

As you stated, diversity. So having ESPN as a partner too makes sense.

Certainly. I am not suggesting they be excluded, by any means.

I am suggesting that ESPN owning all of the rights , and then getting to pick and choose who they sub-lease rights to, if they even do that at all, is not at all a comparable situation.

 

[Goldmember]

There are two conferences next year.
A 12-team playoff, and one that is essentially owned and operated by ESPN, is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Ope3]

ESPN isn't over-the-air compared to the other Networks. Major difference. You're right about Peacock and Prime, but after one year of terrible ratings (like Saturday's Chiefs game), they'll learn.

Doesn't sound like the ratings were terrible. Such a success, I bet Paramount+ & ESPN+/ Hulu want in whenever they get the chance.

Peacock NFL playoff game averages 23 million viewers

The Peacock NFL playoff game averaged 23 million viewers according to NBC, up from last year's comparable game on regular television.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

 

[Iceland12]

Doesn't sound like the ratings were terrible. Such a success, I bet Paramount+ & ESPN+/ Hulu want in whenever they get the chance.

Peacock NFL playoff game averages 23 million viewers

The Peacock NFL playoff game averaged 23 million viewers according to NBC, up from last year's comparable game on regular television.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

Probably but this was buried near the end of the article:

There are reasons to curb one’s enthusiasm about the performance — Dolphins-Chiefs would likely have surpassed the 30 million mark in any other circumstance, and Saturday’s audience ranks among the 20 lowest for a playoff game dating back to the 2002-03 season (248 total) — but there is every reason to believe that playoff games on streaming services are here to stay.

It is not immediately clear how much the two exclusive NFL games on Peacock over the past month have driven subscriptions for the four-year-old service. As of Q3 of last year, Peacock had 28 million subscribers.