One positive benefit of a service like Netflix is we may get some extra content like “hard knocks” type shows, which would increase the interest in the league.
An example is that F1 show Netflix has. Most Americans had little interest in F1, all of a sudden F1 viewership (on ESPN) increased by 100%.
Now you’re on to something that could work. A Hard Knocks/Last Chance U type of reality show. I’m not sure how dramatized the show could get but it could give players more exposure.
There is NIL, transfer portal, coaching changes, etc, so there is a lot to build storylines around.
Yes, this could be a pretty big deal. And I know ESPN+ has some similar shows (SMU or UCF had one) but on Netflix it would be on a other level quality wise , and reach a lot more people.
“A Season on the Big 12” 
F1 Drive to Survive is excellent. Even if you don’t have an interest in car racing, the series is very engaging. If you make it through 4 seasons, you’re likely a new fan and will know almost everyone driving F1 today.
How do you have FOX as less than NBC? While NBC is above Amazon because they have what, a few ND games? FOX shows more college football than NBC, including the already Big 12 game of the week
As to the original question - I can’t go to a sports bar and have them put netfilx on the big TV since they likely will only have Direct TV. Once Netflix has some sort of immersive experience whre you can choose feeds from like 200 different cameras and sound sources for your game, then maybe.
ESPN is the only one we could go all-in with because they have all of the necessary dimensions (network TV, cable channels, streaming system).
But to get a good deal from ESPN, we have to be willing to walk away from ESPN. And the good news is that combinations of the rest could work out really well.
Fox+Amazon
Fox+Netflix
CBS+Fox
CBS+WB
NBC+WB
(To say nothing of combinations of three or more…)
Prob with Netflix and amazon is it tougher to access vs reg tv. It’s almost invisible compared to reg tv for live sports.
Honestly a lot of people would think is the other way around.
I just did a google search and ESPN is in 85 Million us house holds, while Netflix has 71 million subscribers.
Netflix has way more than that, if I’m looking at it correctly they’re in the range of 209-220 million subscribers.
209 million globally
74 million in US and Canada
Edit - based on your 2021 articles. Netflix just had a huge drop in subscriber base the past week or two announced.
Yes, it was around a 200k-400k drop in subscribers globally irrc (might be much more now). I think it was mainly due to lackluster shows and price increases.
Also, didn’t see we were just talking about the US/Canada; my mistake.
Honestly, I wouldn’t mind if the Big 12 somehow got a combo deal with one of these streaming services. Might be able to add a sizeable increase to the media deal.
Neflex is great and watching it now but for live sports,unless they market it , no one will know it’s on. They’d have to have tv advertising. It would take a while to catch on so I’m not sure if it would work. Then they have to compete with great shows on Netflix with people deciding.
This statement isn’t logical , with all due respect . How do you make more money with less exposure. Media markets do not work that way. I can see less money with more exposure, as evidenced by the AAC.
As, such no streaming service will pay more than ESPN/ ABC.
By less exposure I basically mean not being on ESPN , which is where everyone goes for college football, and by not being on ESPN we probably would not be talked as much (by ESPN).
The streaming service would still stream all games, and get their money’s worth.
Option 1 ESPN - $35 million per school, all games on ABC , ESPN , ESPN 2 etc. And some on ESPN+. So great “exposure “
Just my personal preference.
Mostly influenced by personal “preference” and the much more general potential audience outside of UH Alumni and current fans.
How do you think Amazon got so big?
They took losses for many years to grow the business to a certain market coverage. We are not talking about just media services, but online market share for a new industry format. So, yes, you pay more to break into the market with the expectation of future profits - not that hard to understand and not uncommon.
It is quite common for a business to pay for something to help grow a foothold in a market or new area until they are big enough to make it profitable. It has happened to just about every new tech company of the past 20 years or so.
This is where Netflix and Twitter would be imperative to each other. Let’s say UH sends out a tweet about a game. Netflix comments on it or says something with their 17.8 Million followers. Then you get 200k people talking about the game. It goes viral, every sports news outlet involved with B12 shares it and that’s free advertisement.
Then you have Barstool and everyone else asking for permissions to post. Might even get in Netflix good graces for something else. Maybe a show maybe a movie. We have plenty of history. Imagine a recreation of the game where we beat UT, or that one ATM game or the Heisman season, or game of the century movie.
I mean at this point I’m all in on Netflix over ESPN. There’s nothing ESPN can provide that Netflix can’t. And there’s nothing ESPN can do to make us feel on par with SEC and BIG. Unless it’s over 80+Million a year
Honestly that’s what we would hope for.
Amazon seems to be the up and coming player as far as sports are concerned. And they don’t have any issues sharing with television providers.
Wouldn’t be surprised if they somehow buy or partner with a major broadcaster to get whatever sports they can on networks.
Netflix would be silly. They have zero experience with live sports broadcasting or live… Anything.
©Copyright 2017 Coogfans.com
