Peacock is better than Pac-12 Network, but let’s not set the bar that low
You might have noticed that in the past week, television and streaming assignments for early-season 2023 college football games have been revealed. One of the bigger stories in the college football media world was the choice by NBC to put the Sept. 16 game between Washington — a preseason top-15 team — and Michigan State on Peacock. It’s not going to be simulcast on NBC. This is a Peacock exclusive.
The Spartans Wire gathered reactions from Michigan State fans who weren’t happy at all.
It is true that Michigan State football has had a terrible offseason, and that the attractiveness of the matchup is less than what it was (or seemed to be) in January of this year. That point, as true as it might be, still doesn’t change the reality that MSU-Washington is a showcase game. It’s a nonconference game between two Power Five teams. It’s not a cupcake game or a paycheck game.
USC fans should be concerned about non-cupcake games airing on Peacock alone. Let’s dive into this conversation, because it’s an important one:
FIRST THINGS FIRST
Yes, escaping from a mess Larry Scott created is something USC fans are really looking forward to in the Big Ten. Any of the things we’re discussing with Peacock and NBC aren’t as bad as what USC fans have endured with Pac-12 Network. We can all agree on that point. Any criticism of Peacock does not imply that it’s as bad as Pac-12 Network. It isn’t as bad, because nothing could be as bad.
LIVE STREAMING
We know that live streaming is part of life as a sports consumer. We know that corporations need to have a streaming product to make sure their inventory is available on different platforms. An occasional game on streaming-only services? That’s fine, and it’s not what we’re worried about. This issue goes a little deeper than the simple reality of some games being on streaming-only outlets such as Peacock.
QUALITY OF MATCHUPS
USC plays San Jose State in Week 2 of the 2024 college football season. That is a cupcake game. That is a game which should be on Peacock exclusively, much as this year’s USC-SJSU game is on Pac-12 Network.
The time for streaming-only services to carry games involving prominent college football programs (or prominent teams in any sport, for that matter) is the cupcake games.
USC on Peacock exclusively!
Ohio State on Peacock exclusively!
Michigan on Peacock exclusively!
Of course NBC Universal/Comcast will want to showcase Peacock and give consumers a reason to shell out for the service. Again, we’re not objecting to USC being on Peacock at all. We’re objecting to USC’s bigger matchups being on Peacock. That would be plainly unacceptable.
MICHIGAN STATE VS WASHINGTON
Even if Michigan State football appears to be in bad shape, any nonconference game between two notable Power Five programs — MSU and Washington have both won 11 games in a season in the past 24 months — should be reasonably available to the general public. This is much like the view that NBA Finals games or NFL playoff games should always be available to the full public. This is where we run into a problem, though:
NFL PLAYOFFS ON PEACOCK
You might have missed this story, but in May, it was revealed that Peacock will exclusively broadcast one NFL playoff game. People went nuts about that. That kind of outrage doesn’t emerge by accident. USC versus Wisconsin or Penn State being on Peacock would be similar. A game people circle on their calendars should not be relegated to streaming. The fact that it is beginning to happen a little more often should not be accepted; it should be pushed back against.
FRENCH OPEN TENNIS ON PEACOCK
On Sunday, June 4, the night match at the French Open between Sloane Stephens and Aryna Sabalenka will be shown exclusively on Peacock. It’s a battle of two former major champions, arguably the most important match of the tournament preceding the semifinals and the final. It will only be shown on Peacock, not NBC or Tennis Channel.
Is that a service to viewers? No. The common fan should be able to access the biggest events without having to pay extra.
PREMIER LEAGUE SOCCER ON PEACOCK
The biggest match of the 2023 Premier League football season — Arsenal versus Manchester City, the top two teams in the standings late in the campaign on April 26 — was on Peacock.
Keep in mind that NBC and USA regularly show Premier League matches, including on weekdays, but the top match of the whole season was relegated to Peacock. That’s not providing a service; that’s giving viewers the expectation that regular coverage will be provided, only to pull that regular coverage away in a big moment to incentivize paying extra for the streaming service. There is a reasonable use and place for streaming-only broadcasts; that isn’t it. It’s like having the Rose Bowl on a streaming-only outlet, or — as noted above — an NFL playoff game on a streaming-only outlet.
Big communal events, or centerpiece showcases (or both, since they often overlap), should not be relegated to streaming-only outlets. Smaller events, such as USC-San Jose State or Michigan State-Central Michigan, are the right uses for streaming-only.
FRAGMENTATION
There are so many different outlets for games. The good news is that nearly every game has an outlet of some kind. This is something sports fans in the 1970s lacked. Only a handful of games in any major sport were available on television each weekend. Today’s sports media world enables fans to watch college football from 9 a.m. to midnight on the West Coast, flipping channels which cover several dozen games. That’s all great, and it does mean several different corporate entities will hold the rights to various games in various conferences.
What this means, though, is that the diehard fan with enough disposable income will pay for streaming services for his or her own team. The diehard USC fan will pay for Peacock to watch USC-San Jose State.
When we consider something such as USC-Notre Dame, however, that kind of treasured cultural centerpiece in American sports should be accessible without having to pay extra. Why? It’s actually a simple answer: That kind of game was shown on ABC in the 1970s, back when fans could watch only a select few college football games on a given Saturday.
If a game was free in the 1970s, it should be free today (on over-the-air network television). If it’s not, that’s basically price-gouging, even if no one is willing to call it that.
AFFORDABILITY
Someone might say — accurately enough — that buying Peacock doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. Narrowly, that might be true. However, flowing from the above point about fragmentation, fans are asked to buy this streaming service over here (Peacock), and that one over there (Paramount for CBS games), and that one over there (ESPN Plus), and that one way over there (Tennis Channel Plus for the French Open), and that other one in the corner (Big Ten 2 Go/BTN Plus).
It is both emotionally exhausting and — at a certain threshold — no longer affordable to keep collecting streaming services as a consumer. Some can afford it, but many can’t. There’s only so much time and money for a lot of people. That’s part of why having a big game such as Michigan State-Washington on Peacock rankles a lot of people … and rightly so.
LOOKING FORWARD
When USC moves into the Big Ten, Peacock-only games involving high-end opponents will not be acceptable.
If USC hosts Indiana and is a 29-point favorite against the Hoosiers, fine — that kind of game can be on Peacock at 10:30 p.m. Eastern and 7:30 Pacific. No one will throw tantrums over that kind of game being on a streaming-only service.
However, if USC-Nebraska is put on Peacock (and Nebraska is reasonably good under new coach Matt Rhule), that will definitely be a problem.
Hopefully, this conversation has clarified several important points.
