Catching The Game

Tuesday night, I noted on Twitter that my son was trying to find the Illinois-Purdue game in St. Louis and struggling to find a sports bar that had it on. The responses went in several different directions, so I wanted to write about what I was trying to say. It wasn't about St. Louis and it wasn't about trying to avoid paying for Peacock. The issue is more... the way we catch the game.

First off, I'll expand on his experience Tuesday night. He left work and headed for a sports bar in Lake St. Louis (far west suburb) to catch the game. They had it on the big screen. But when the Blues game came on, they switched the TV's to the Blues game. Makes sense. You'd hope for a shift to one of the smaller screens, but that's a strip mall sports bar that really pushes "come watch the Blues game here" so they have to continue their regular routine.

So my son went to the Buffalo Wild Wings nearby to watch the second half of Illinois-Purdue. They didn't have it on. He asked, and they said they didn't carry Peacock. More on that in a moment.

He went to a third place: no Peacock. Finally, before heading home, he tried a fourth place (Hotshots). They had Peacock and had the game on. Leave it to the breastaurant to have the game on.

Could my son have paid $5 for Peacock for less than his gas money driving around? Sure. But I hate that concept. It creates burning anger from deep in my Gen X soul. I believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to assemble at sports bars to catch the game. Especially when that game is #3 playing #12 in March.

Do I understand the dynamics of sports broadcasting in 2024? I absolutely do. Do I understand that the University of Illinois was financially carried across an entire lost decade (both in Memorial Stadium and the State Farm Center) by the very wise TV deals brokered by Jim Delany? I do. Do I get why NBC overpaid for their Saturday night football games because it meant they could also force some football and basketball games onto Peacock and boost subscription numbers? Absolutely.

But it still bothers me that the #1 team in the Big Ten vs. the #2 team in the Big Ten was forced over to Peacock. That's where I want new Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti to step in and say "no - a game like that promotes our brand and we can't have it buried." They've done that for football, and I hate that they didn't do it for the game of the year in basketball.

Yes, game of the year. Biggest game in the Big Ten this season. The team that finished 1st locking up the outright title by beating the team that finished 2nd. If you missed it, well, it was streaming on Peacock.

My point, just like everything else I've written in the last year it seems, is that we're forgetting about the fan experience. I understand that the hundreds of millions of dollars from NBC boosts every program in the Big Ten, and the tradeoff is letting NBC try to grow their Peacock subscriptions. But when that means "Illinois vs. Purdue isn't on a single screen at Buffalo Wild Wings", that's a problem. It very much hurts the Big Ten brand and alienates fans.

The reason I say that it bothers me as a Gen X-er is, well, just use the premise of every article you've read about teenage pregnancy rates dropping significantly because teenagers simply don't get together in person anymore (or whatever article points to device-initiated societal changes). With digital interaction replacing personal interaction, millennials and Gen Z kids (yes, kids) don't navigate the world like I used to. And part of my world navigation was collectively watching The Sports at a sports bar with other fans.

No, I'm not saying "the two generations behind mine don't go to sports bars at all anymore." I'm sure many do. I'm saying that the responses I received – "just pay the $5" and "it's because St. Louis doesn't care about Illinois" – don't address the real issue here. We built a society where Buffalo Wild Wings wouldn't be caught dead not having #3 vs. #12 on their televisions and then we pivoted society to where even Buffalo Wild Wings thinks "eh, if people want that game they can just watch it on their device."

Or, better yet, see this response:

A sports bar without access to #3 vs. #12 won't pay a small fee for monthly Peacock because they can just send that fan over to that TV and let them cast it for themselves. Welcome to 2024.

Do you see my point here? Yes, my son could have driven 40 minutes to downtown STL and joined the St. Louis Illini Club game watch at Paddy O's. But the fact that people are even suggesting that to me proves my point. People read my tweet and thought of ways to watch the game. I can't believe we've returned to an era where we talk about ways to watch the game. We solved that in the late 80's/early 90's. And it was glorious.

Even ten years ago today, the idea that #3 vs. #12 wouldn't be on the televisions at a St. Louis Buffalo Wild Wings (or a St. George, Utah sports bar) would be unthinkable. But now, when I make the point that we've let the unthinkable happen, people respond with "here's how he could watch the game" like access is the issue.

Yes, there are a thousand moving parts here. I understand how regional network blackouts have normalized "I'll just watch the game on my phone" for sports fans. The St. George, Utah bar in question might have even taken a long time to get a broadcast package that included BTN (where 50% of our games exist). Cord cutting has changed the economics of sports broadcasting. I get it.

I still hate that #3 vs. #12 is streaming and not in front of every sports fan in America. I hate that the Big Ten isn't protective of its marquee basketball games. I hate that the system has changed so much that a BWW manager can ponder "would we really lose business if we didn't have Peacock?" I hate that "get it in front of everyone" has been replaced by "hide it over here and make them pay directly for it." (And yes, I said that with a straight face from my subscription website. There's a tiny difference between my dumb articles and the 1-2 matchup in the Big Ten.)

The reason the Big Ten and SEC have built up to what will soon be twice the revenue of the other conferences is because of demand. Fans in the Midwest and the south want to Catch The Game in a way that just doesn't exist on the coasts. That leads to broadcasters paying more for the rights to those games because the advertising can be sold for millions. It also allows for the development of the Big Ten Network (and SEC Network) that can't be matched by the ACC and Big 12. There just isn't the same demand.

But on the back side of this, the recent shifts have eroded our Head To The Bar To Catch The Game After Work culture that has existed in the Midwest for decades. "That's my team and I want to join others and Catch The Game" built the demand. That demand built the television contracts. And now the broadcast partners are making device-centric decisions which, in my opinion, are eroding our "I have to Catch The Game" culture.

I'm not expecting a 21 year-old today to try to watch games the way I did 30 years ago. I understand that there will be shifts across generations. Devices and streaming will continue to change the way we consume sports.

I'm simply saying that we can't forget about "intentionally put this product in front of as many faces as possible." Illinois vs. Purdue on Peacock added exactly zero new Illini or Purdue (or college basketball) fans. People had to seek the game out. Seeking the game is fine for an established fan, but for the casual fan stopping by BWW for some wings and a beer after work?

The Big Ten should make sure the game of the year is front and center.