Welcome to the 39th Media Mailbag for The Athletic. Thanks for sending in your questions via the website and app. There were more than 125 questions, so this is Part 2 of a two-parter. Part I ran on Monday.

(Note: Questions have been edited for clarity and length.)

Within the realm of realistic possibilities based on how good the teams are, what are the best- and worst-case Super Bowls for the NFL this year based on viewership? — Sean C.

Love this question. I’ll give you my top 7, and then offer some insight into the why:

1. Chiefs–Lions
2. Chiefs-Eagles
3. Chiefs-Packers
4. Bills-Lions
5. Steelers-Lions
6. Steelers-Eagles
7. Bills-Eagles

I wrote a long piece earlier this month on why I think the Chiefs, not the Dallas Cowboys, deserve the title of “America’s Team” as far as a network viewership play. Kansas City is currently the viewership standard-bearer for the league and there are obvious reasons why. They have prominent star players such as Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, they benefit from hate-watching given their massive success and marketing, and they are associated with the most famous pop singer on the planet in Taylor Swift. So my top three selections involve the Chiefs.

I think the Lions have the most viewership potential in the NFC given their style of play, the franchise’s long quest to win a Super Bowl and the historical passion of that team’s fanbase. The Buffalo Bills, Philadelphia Eagles, Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers are all powerful viewership draws, and that’s why they made my list. The Cowboys have no realistic chance to win the Super Bowl, so they are not included here.

Any read on the World Cup bidding (men’s and women’s)? Is it Fox’s to lose or will ESPN or NBC overpay to leverage their streaming platform? — Mike S.

ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro told me in 2022 that his company would be interested in bidding. “Absolutely,” Pitaro said. “Hard stop. Without any reservations.” Last year, ESPN president of content Burke Magnus reiterated that to me: “I’m sure given the global significance of that property that we will take a run on it.”

I think Fox will unquestionably want to continue with the World Cup. But keep an eye out for a place such as Amazon or Netflix as well, because this would really be a way to bring in subs as well as advertising. FIFA is currently seeking bids on the rights to carry the 2027 and 2031 Women’s World Cups in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Per Sports Business Journal: It marks the first time the broadcast rights to the women’s event are being sold separately from the men’s World Cup rights in the U.S.

How badly has MLS hurt itself by putting almost all of its matches behind a paywall and moving most matches to 7 p.m. on Saturday nights? — Matthew W.

If you could give MLS commissioner Don Garber truth serum, which situation do you think he would prefer for MLS: The Apple deal and every match effectively behind a paywall (especially the playoffs), or the NWSL where everything is scattered but nothing is siloed (for) a casual fan? For example, you can turn on a network and watch playoff action? — Mark L.

I think Garber and MLS would unquestionably still take the Apple deal. The linear networks in total were not paying MLS $2.5 billion over 10 years for their inventory. But you are correct: MLS feels like a ghost property being behind its paywall. Still, we are in the very early days of the contract. Candidly, I thought Leo Messi would be game-changing as far as U.S.-based interest in MLS but that hasn’t really come to fruition, at least not as I expected. As someone who has watched the product in person in Toronto, it’s an excellent game-day experience.

Personally, the only reason I subscribe to a cable TV service is because it’s the only way to get all of our local MLB and NBA teams’ home games. Otherwise, we’d cut the cord completely and not even need a higher-priced smorgasbord TV platform. Is there going to be a time when each pro team will offer their own streaming packages? Or is it still too complex and costly for teams to do it themselves? — Murray C.

You are starting to see this in a number of markets. For example, the Utah Jazz and new Utah Hockey Club have an in-market, direct-to-consumer streaming service. (There are also over-the-air games in that market.) This is a good piece from Evan Drellich on what Rob Manfred hopes to do with baseball inventory. The short answer is that it will cost consumers more heading forward to see both your local teams and national games.

Is there any sense of what Kevin Harlan will do after Turner loses NBA rights? He’s so closely connected to CBS that it seems like he’ll have to choose to give up the NBA or the NFL and college hoops. I can’t imagine he goes to ESPN.  — Greg K.

I would be very surprised if Harlan doesn’t land at Amazon to call NBA games. That would still work with his football contract. Let’s see.

Why can’t noon college football games start at noon? Or at least 12:01 or 12:02. Is it really necessary after a two- or three-hour pregame that kickoff be delayed 15 more minutes by incessant yammering? Just start the game already. Sorry for the rant, but I hate this practice. — Scott A.

I hear you. A big reason for this nonsense is the networks can squeeze some ad revenue in before the game actually starts. Fox’s college football pregame show routinely bleeds into the noon hour prior to kickoff, which is a nice way for them to add viewership numbers with people tuning in specifically for a kickoff time that isn’t real. Here’s a good piece by Mitch Sherman and Scott Dochterman on noon kickoff times.

How do networks determine who the broadcast crews are for various bowl games? Obviously ESPN throws a bone to some of their studio folks to do games, but is there some sort of hierarchy that guides this? Or crews’ familiarity with certain teams/conferences? — Justin F.

It’s all determined by the executives and staff who lead the college football verticals. The top broadcast teams will do the showcase bowls and then you work your way down from there. Familiarity with teams can be a factor. So can travel.

Were you surprised by the licensing deal bringing “Inside the NBA” to ESPN? Are you aware of any similar deals before? — Doug N.

I think most in the business were surprised. I did a long podcast on it here if interested. I can’t think of another show with this kind of cultural cachet being licensed, but we have certainly seen deals where one company produces games for another.

“Inside the NBA” will move from Warner Bros. Discovery’s TNT to ESPN as part of a unique trade between the networks. (Andrew Burke-Stevenson / The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Given the rapid rise in the monetary sums that some leagues are getting from broadcast partners despite the continued decline of television users, do you believe there to be a specific point in time where television broadcasters such as CBS, Fox, etc. eventually say that the costs are no longer justified and streaming takes over either completely or in large part? If so, what do you think the ratings on TV would need to decline to? How sustainable do you believe that to be over the next 10-20 years and beyond? — Mario L.

A multi-billion-dollar question. I think linear television will last longer than conventional wisdom might suggest. Usage will continue to decline but it takes a long time for an established industry to truly die. Radio still exists. The movie experience still exists. They exist in much smaller scope, but they remain. There are long-term deals in place, so nothing dramatic will change this decade. Sports and news will continue to exist. If you asked me today if NBC and Fox will be airing the NFL in, say, 2037, I would say yes.

Is a RedZone-type channel feasible (or even legal) for college football? I feel like that would be even more popular than the NFL’s RedZone channel. — Andrew B.

I don’t think it will happen as a video play given all the various rights holders, but it does exist as an audio play. Learfield’s “College Football Blitz” is streamed for 12 hours (noon-midnight ET) every Saturday on Varsity Network for free and SiriusXM simulcasts for the first eight hours on its College Sports channel (84).

“Learfield owns the multimedia rights to most FBS schools, so every Saturday we whip around to live coverage of as many games as possible,” said Learfield Network manager and on-air host Stephen Hartzell. “We have the ability to tap into the hometown radio feed of one or both teams and tell the story of the game through the local broadcasters. We aren’t TV, so we can’t ‘quad-box’ games, but if we miss a scoring play, we can access highlights easily and catch the listener up, usually within seconds.”

Hartzell said five staffers are involved in the Blitz, including producers Tim Bickford and Aaron Brunk, board operator Tripp Hurd and on-air hosts Phil Brame and Hartzell.

Do you think sports media will ever move away from Twitter/X as a platform to break news? — Mark S.

I subscribe to the notion of a splintered social media economy. But I’ve always believed Twitter’s hold on sports — the virtual sea that I and many others swim in — isn’t permanent. There has been a significant movement of sports content people to Bluesky over the last 20 days, but it definitely needs more news-breaking.

The wise move, in my opinion, would be to keep active accounts on multiple platforms. Will the rabid growth of Bluesky last? Impossible to say. But there are at least 80 staffers at The Athletic now on it, and I think it’s been great for sports. Personally, I’m getting tons of engagement on my posts and the level of discourse has been very high. I recently did a podcast with The Ringer’s Howard Beck on this topic, if interested.

Which league does the best at making its product available internationally? Here’s one vote for the NFL. (Naomi Baker / Getty Images)

Which sport do you think has done the best in making their games available to an international audience and what improvements would you like to see or expect to see over the coming years? I find MLB has done a very good job allowing me to watch and follow teams and analysis while living outside the U.S. — John O.

I find the NFL experience in Canada to be tremendous. I can get every game here via Sunday Ticket and cable without subscribing to multiple streaming services.

What can we as fans do to stop the unholy alliance between all sports and the sports betting industry? Gambling is an insanely stupid hobby designed to give your money to faceless corporations. A tax on people who don’t understand statistics. That our media has so heartily embraced it certainly has to be part of the problem. — Dwight M.

I appreciate your viewpoint. Personally, I’m not much of sports gambler, but it is legal in many states and the interest is too great for sports outlets to avoid it, including bringing in ad revenue. I think the legalization is going to create many damaged lives but only the public at large can insist on changing the laws — and for now the public seems agnostic when it comes to changing things.

Do NFL commentators primarily watch live out of their broadcast suite windows, or do they watch via monitors to see the same thing that viewers are seeing? I ask because this season I’m noticing a huge disconnect with what the commentary teams seem to see versus what’s actually onscreen. — Roy S.

I’ve embedded for six or seven games with NFL broadcast crews. It often depends on the location of the booth and the weather conditions. They’ll do both during a game. It can be very hard to see who made a defensive play (which is why all teams have spotters) and even more difficult to pick up an infraction when looking directly at the field.

I’ve become a fan of the Bills’ “lucky 13” WR Mack Hollins, as much for his on-field performance as for his quirks (barefooted lifestyle; dislike of utensils; prohibition against “small cats”; goes “vegan on game day”; etc.). Think he’d make it post-career as a broadcaster, or does quirky no longer fit in the broadcast booth? — John M.

Quirky can definitely work in broadcasting, and it could even serve as a separator. Speaking very broadly because I haven’t seen any of Hollins’ interviews: His biggest challenge would be that he’s not a well-known NFL player at the moment, and that makes things challenging in an industry where employers tend to hire former players with name recognition.

How much does CBS regret not re-upping with the SEC? — Martin D.

Look, it’s a big loss for them. Whether they had a legit shot at retaining all of the package given the financials depends on who is telling the story. There was a terrific piece from Yahoo’s Ross Dellinger that spelled out in detail how the relationship fell apart. With hindsight and looking at where the SEC is with its conference additions, I think CBS unquestionably would prefer to be the network of SEC football than one-third of the Big Ten. But what’s done is done. No going back now.

GO DEEPER

Are Tom Brady’s restrictions unfair to viewers? Media Mailbag, Part 1

(Top photo of Patrick Mahomes: Matt Kelley / Getty Images)