http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...TopStories

Long but interesting read. I think there will be a lot of changes coming in the future. The sports world in the short term will continue to be fine, but I wonder how things will look 10 years from now. Obviously a lot more live streaming content; however, will there still be as many fans glued to the multimedia devices that will be providing sports programming? I think we're seeing a slow decline in overall sports viewership consumption. Frankly, it doesn't bother me a bit.

One thing though that I am taking away from this article is that the TV deals for the conferences will start falling in value. Since more people are seeing the ugliness of professional sports due to the increasingly violent and entitled mentality of the professional athletes - I'm getting pretty close to saying good riddance...

the next round will be interesting.

do the big east & b12 get lowballed for their overpriced contracts they have now?

how big of a payday will the acc/b10 cash in on?

(07-15-2013 02:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...TopStories

Long but interesting read. I think there will be a lot of changes coming in the future. The sports world in the short term will continue to be fine, but I wonder how things will look 10 years from now. Obviously a lot more live streaming content; however, will there still be as many fans glued to the multimedia devices that will be providing sports programming? I think we're seeing a slow decline in overall sports viewership consumption. Frankly, it doesn't bother me a bit.

One thing though that I am taking away from this article is that the TV deals for the conferences will start falling in value. Since more people are seeing the ugliness of professional sports due to the increasingly violent and entitled mentality of the professional athletes - I'm getting pretty close to saying good riddance...

There is no way that people stop watching sports in the next ten years. Even if there is a drop it wont be big enough to effect any of this. No one knew ten years ago about how things would change and no one knows how things will look in ten years from now. People have been watching these sports for decades, they aren't going away.

The big issue is everyone wants free entertainment, but they fail to realize that it costs money to make entertainment. People don't work for free. Thats the issue with the illegal bootlegging of movies and video games. Yeah you are getting the good stuff for free now, but everything is going to suck when those who made a living making those things can no longer make a living and stop making them.

Music is different since the musicians make their money from live shows. It's just the execs who get hurt from illegal downloading.

Well unless the unlikely event that zombies attack America and we lose half of the population the population will continue to grow. More people = more viewers = more people spending money. Throw that in with the pending huge increase on minimum wage and I would be surprised if the Sun Belt is not pulling a 2+ mil TV deal in five years.

My worry is that fans stop attending the games. What is a few dollars a month or even for PPV when compared with a visit to the stadium on Saturday? You can drink beer in the comfort of your living room, go to the nearest sports pub, invite your friends, and watch a 65" TV. Fans that choose not to pay for either just won't see the games at all. Just that simple... Something has to give here. I believe it will be stadium attendance. Fifteen years ago I paid $120.00 for FSU season tix. What are they now? A single game ticket to the FSU/UF game last year was $235.00. Not sustainable. JMHO...

(07-15-2013 03:04 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  My worry is that fans stop attending the games. What is a few dollars a month or even for PPV when compared with a visit to the stadium on Saturday? You can drink beer in the comfort of your living room, go to the nearest sports pub, invite your friends, and watch a 65" TV. Fand that choose not to pay for either just won't see the games at all. Just that simple...

I think that affects those with the 80-100K stadiums. Those with the 50-60 range should be fine. The prob with those bigger stadiums is the poor view leads to exactly what you were saying. I enjoy going to BBall games in person, but FB games are much better suited to be enjoyed on a couch or a bar stool in front of a nice flat screen TV.

Big contracts? What big contracts?

I'm in the AAC; did I miss something?

(07-15-2013 03:15 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 03:04 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  My worry is that fans stop attending the games. What is a few dollars a month or even for PPV when compared with a visit to the stadium on Saturday? You can drink beer in the comfort of your living room, go to the nearest sports pub, invite your friends, and watch a 65" TV. Fand that choose not to pay for either just won't see the games at all. Just that simple...

I think that affects those with the 80-100K stadiums. Those with the 50-60 range should be fine. The prob with those bigger stadiums is the poor view leads to exactly what you were saying. I enjoy going to BBall games in person, but FB games are much better suited to be enjoyed on a couch or a bar stool in front of a nice flat screen TV.

I enjoyed going to the CFB games, when the tickets were reasonable. Now New Orleans Saints tickets are cheaper.

(07-15-2013 03:22 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 03:15 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 03:04 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  My worry is that fans stop attending the games. What is a few dollars a month or even for PPV when compared with a visit to the stadium on Saturday? You can drink beer in the comfort of your living room, go to the nearest sports pub, invite your friends, and watch a 65" TV. Fand that choose not to pay for either just won't see the games at all. Just that simple...

I think that affects those with the 80-100K stadiums. Those with the 50-60 range should be fine. The prob with those bigger stadiums is the poor view leads to exactly what you were saying. I enjoy going to BBall games in person, but FB games are much better suited to be enjoyed on a couch or a bar stool in front of a nice flat screen TV.

I enjoyed going to the CFB games, when the tickets were reasonable. Now New Orleans Saints tickets are cheaper.

Huh? In Dallas, the Cowboys tickets are about $175 (?), but you can see SMU for about $25

Starting next year, I bet you could go to a Tulane game in their new stadium for about $25.

More than 75% of the homes with ESPN DID NOT watch the BCS championship game and it was the most watched college game of the year. That was also the most watched sporting event on ESPN last year (tied for 39th most watched of the year but most watched non-NFL, non-Olympics event).

ESPN receives about 75% of it's income from subscriber fees. That means that more than 56% of ESPN's income came from people who did not care to watch the event that drew ESPN's largest audience.

I think questioning whether the current model can remain in place is a smart question to ask.

(07-15-2013 02:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...TopStories

Long but interesting read. I think there will be a lot of changes coming in the future. The sports world in the short term will continue to be fine, but I wonder how things will look 10 years from now. Obviously a lot more live streaming content; however, will there still be as many fans glued to the multimedia devices that will be providing sports programming? I think we're seeing a slow decline in overall sports viewership consumption. Frankly, it doesn't bother me a bit.

One thing though that I am taking away from this article is that the TV deals for the conferences will start falling in value. Since more people are seeing the ugliness of professional sports due to the increasingly violent and entitled mentality of the professional athletes - I'm getting pretty close to saying good riddance...

Just remember Miko that people are tired of seeing the violent and entitled mentality and ugliness of corporate executives in the new world of "I'm too big to fail so let me annuitize your retirement" high finance and government but I don't see either of them coming to an end anytime soon either. So I would say when foreign nations truly no longer trust the Ponzi backed dollar and the fiat system falls, yet again, but this time in Europe and the U.S., then the networks, like other members of conglomerates will fall squarely on their flat wallets and the gravy train for professional and collegiate sports will be over, because everything else will be over and it will be time to rethink, rebuild, and re-regulate the economy. And unlike many I don't see that as Armageddon but rather as a healthier response in a free market system than what we have now. The playing fields of everything including college sports will be leveled and innovation will once again thrive. And as part of revitalization sports will once again find an appropriate level of public support and enthusiasm.

But it will take something that calamitous to accomplish what you are suggesting, which is why I laid it out the way I did. So until that unhappy and drastically eventful day it will remain as it is.

(07-15-2013 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 02:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...TopStories

Long but interesting read. I think there will be a lot of changes coming in the future. The sports world in the short term will continue to be fine, but I wonder how things will look 10 years from now. Obviously a lot more live streaming content; however, will there still be as many fans glued to the multimedia devices that will be providing sports programming? I think we're seeing a slow decline in overall sports viewership consumption. Frankly, it doesn't bother me a bit.

One thing though that I am taking away from this article is that the TV deals for the conferences will start falling in value. Since more people are seeing the ugliness of professional sports due to the increasingly violent and entitled mentality of the professional athletes - I'm getting pretty close to saying good riddance...

Just remember Miko that people are tired of seeing the violent and entitled mentality and ugliness of corporate executives in the new world of "I'm too big to fail so let me annuitize your retirement" high finance and government but I don't see either of them coming to an end anytime soon either. So I would say when foreign nations truly no longer trust the Ponzi backed dollar and the fiat system falls, yet again, but this time in Europe and the U.S., then the networks, like other members of conglomerates will fall squarely on their flat wallets and the gravy train for professional and collegiate sports will be over, because everything else will be over and it will be time to rethink, rebuild, and re-regulate the economy. And unlike many I don't see that as Armageddon but rather as a healthier response in a free market system than what we have now. The playing fields of everything including college sports will be leveled and innovation will once again thrive. And as part of revitalization sports will once again find an appropriate level of public support and enthusiasm.

I would say your "apocalyptic" scenario is much more likely to happen than a serious drop in sports viewing that would cause these Networks to stop paying these conferences that much.

A conference like the ACC might feel the pinch because they have zero negotiating leverage. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of ESPN.

(07-15-2013 04:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  More than 75% of the homes with ESPN DID NOT watch the BCS championship game and it was the most watched college game of the year. That was also the most watched sporting event on ESPN last year (tied for 39th most watched of the year but most watched non-NFL, non-Olympics event).

ESPN receives about 75% of it's income from subscriber fees. That means that more than 56% of ESPN's income came from people who did not care to watch the event that drew ESPN's largest audience.

I think questioning whether the current model can remain in place is a smart question to ask.

The few conglomerates who run all of those networks will not let people pick and choose which of their channels they get. Viacom will make you get ALL of their channels, same with Disney, Fox, Comcast and all the others. I pay for Lifetime network and I don't watch that. Same goes for the 24 hour news stations I don't watch and the design and cooking channels. We aren't paying for each of these individually, we are paying for them as a whole. They prop each other up and help create the diverse web of channels we all enjoy today. How many people watch the channels you or I don't watch?

(07-15-2013 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 02:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...TopStories

Long but interesting read. I think there will be a lot of changes coming in the future. The sports world in the short term will continue to be fine, but I wonder how things will look 10 years from now. Obviously a lot more live streaming content; however, will there still be as many fans glued to the multimedia devices that will be providing sports programming? I think we're seeing a slow decline in overall sports viewership consumption. Frankly, it doesn't bother me a bit.

One thing though that I am taking away from this article is that the TV deals for the conferences will start falling in value. Since more people are seeing the ugliness of professional sports due to the increasingly violent and entitled mentality of the professional athletes - I'm getting pretty close to saying good riddance...

Just remember Miko that people are tired of seeing the violent and entitled mentality and ugliness of corporate executives in the new world of "I'm too big to fail so let me annuitize your retirement" high finance and government but I don't see either of them coming to an end anytime soon either. So I would say when foreign nations truly no longer trust the Ponzi backed dollar and the fiat system falls, yet again, but this time in Europe and the U.S., then the networks, like other members of conglomerates will fall squarely on their flat wallets and the gravy train for professional and collegiate sports will be over, because everything else will be over and it will be time to rethink, rebuild, and re-regulate the economy. And unlike many I don't see that as Armageddon but rather as a healthier response in a free market system than what we have now. The playing fields of everything including college sports will be leveled and innovation will once again thrive. And as part of revitalization sports will once again find an appropriate level of public support and enthusiasm.

But it will take something that calamitous to accomplish what you are suggesting, which is why I laid it out the way I did. So until that unhappy and drastically eventful day it will remain as it is.

Are people REALLY sick of entitled conglomerates?

State and local governments are falling all over themselves to be more attractive to them, exempting them from regulations and taxes. The Federal government saved the "too big to fail" companies and failed to pass any significant regulations to prevent recurrence and so far no one was gone to the pen for criminal behavior leading to the economic collapse and the few indictments were for bit players at local levels.

The Congress, state legislatures, and municipal governments elected in the wake of all that are more pro-conglomerate that the lap dogs they already had.

I just don't see any real backlash.

I think you are right that a fall on our economic keister is the only possible change. It is interesting that Wal-Mart, Family Dollar, and Dollar General who make their money by being affordable to lower income people are all showing weaker earnings because of poor sales of discretionary items.

If cable/IPTV/satellite start offering and pushing more stripped down packages to keep them as customers the revolution in the market may happen there.

Just because certain individuals and institutions are clamoring for that attention, that doesnt mean they particularly like it. That is the pragmatic choice by them. Doesn't mean they wouldn't rather some other option instead.

(07-15-2013 04:55 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 04:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  More than 75% of the homes with ESPN DID NOT watch the BCS championship game and it was the most watched college game of the year. That was also the most watched sporting event on ESPN last year (tied for 39th most watched of the year but most watched non-NFL, non-Olympics event).

ESPN receives about 75% of it's income from subscriber fees. That means that more than 56% of ESPN's income came from people who did not care to watch the event that drew ESPN's largest audience.

I think questioning whether the current model can remain in place is a smart question to ask.

The few conglomerates who run all of those networks will not let people pick and choose which of their channels they get. Viacom will make you get ALL of their channels, same with Disney, Fox, Comcast and all the others. I pay for Lifetime network and I don't watch that. Same goes for the 24 hour news stations I don't watch and the design and cooking channels. We aren't paying for each of these individually, we are paying for them as a whole. They prop each other up and help create the diverse web of channels we all enjoy today. How many people watch the channels you or I don't watch?

you hit the nail on the head, and that is what keeps delany up at night. multiple lawsuits are trying to debunk that....i have no idea what the outcome will be....but they do threaten the viability of these conference networks

I've said often and forcefully that I don't think ala carte is a great model or a likely result but...

Per capita disposable income is falling in the bottom four quintiles of earnings and we are moving into a situation where income distribution is starting to line up with situation of the late 1920's.

Cable/Sat/IPTV are going to face a real challenge as 80% of Americans have reduced spending power. Right now ESPN is available in about 87% of homes.

I don't believe cord-cutting is anywhere close to be mature enough to be a common replacement. More likely is people migrating to some very low cost packages. Dish offers a $19.95 package of 50ish channels depending on how many locals and the only sports channels are CBS Sports and Outdoors. Direct's comparable is $55 and includes most ESPNs and 120 channels. XFinity/Comcast now offers two packages without ESPN, the most stripped down (price not even shown!) offers locals, local low power, subchannels of locals, Impact(?), WGN, BET, Shopping channels and local access. ATT now offers two packages that don't have ESPN or other sports channel.

If just 10% of current ESPN consumers cord cut or move to a package without ESPN that's a 7.5% reduction in income. That's not putting them in bankruptcy (unless they are borrowing a lot which is unlikely) but it is a big blow to the dollars available. It's a figure more than the annual payments to ACC, Big XII and SEC combined.

If economic forces reduce ESPN's footprint and revenue, things could be even worse for FS1. They are hoping for 90 million homes and have been pretty aggressive getting rights in order to gain leverage to charge a price similar to ESPN. If the market trends away, those higher rate fees may not be there.

(07-15-2013 04:55 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 04:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  More than 75% of the homes with ESPN DID NOT watch the BCS championship game and it was the most watched college game of the year. That was also the most watched sporting event on ESPN last year (tied for 39th most watched of the year but most watched non-NFL, non-Olympics event).

ESPN receives about 75% of it's income from subscriber fees. That means that more than 56% of ESPN's income came from people who did not care to watch the event that drew ESPN's largest audience.

I think questioning whether the current model can remain in place is a smart question to ask.

The few conglomerates who run all of those networks will not let people pick and choose which of their channels they get. Viacom will make you get ALL of their channels, same with Disney, Fox, Comcast and all the others. I pay for Lifetime network and I don't watch that. Same goes for the 24 hour news stations I don't watch and the design and cooking channels. We aren't paying for each of these individually, we are paying for them as a whole. They prop each other up and help create the diverse web of channels we all enjoy today. How many people watch the channels you or I don't watch?

Isn't there action in Congress regarding allowing viewers to pick a la carte?

(07-15-2013 11:30 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 04:55 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 04:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  More than 75% of the homes with ESPN DID NOT watch the BCS championship game and it was the most watched college game of the year. That was also the most watched sporting event on ESPN last year (tied for 39th most watched of the year but most watched non-NFL, non-Olympics event).

ESPN receives about 75% of it's income from subscriber fees. That means that more than 56% of ESPN's income came from people who did not care to watch the event that drew ESPN's largest audience.

I think questioning whether the current model can remain in place is a smart question to ask.

The few conglomerates who run all of those networks will not let people pick and choose which of their channels they get. Viacom will make you get ALL of their channels, same with Disney, Fox, Comcast and all the others. I pay for Lifetime network and I don't watch that. Same goes for the 24 hour news stations I don't watch and the design and cooking channels. We aren't paying for each of these individually, we are paying for them as a whole. They prop each other up and help create the diverse web of channels we all enjoy today. How many people watch the channels you or I don't watch?

Isn't there action in Congress regarding allowing viewers to pick a la carte?

Yes but it has been on the same fast-track as DC Statehood, Puerto Rico statehood, and a balanced budget amendment.

(07-15-2013 11:30 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 04:55 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 04:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  More than 75% of the homes with ESPN DID NOT watch the BCS championship game and it was the most watched college game of the year. That was also the most watched sporting event on ESPN last year (tied for 39th most watched of the year but most watched non-NFL, non-Olympics event).

ESPN receives about 75% of it's income from subscriber fees. That means that more than 56% of ESPN's income came from people who did not care to watch the event that drew ESPN's largest audience.

I think questioning whether the current model can remain in place is a smart question to ask.

The few conglomerates who run all of those networks will not let people pick and choose which of their channels they get. Viacom will make you get ALL of their channels, same with Disney, Fox, Comcast and all the others. I pay for Lifetime network and I don't watch that. Same goes for the 24 hour news stations I don't watch and the design and cooking channels. We aren't paying for each of these individually, we are paying for them as a whole. They prop each other up and help create the diverse web of channels we all enjoy today. How many people watch the channels you or I don't watch?

Isn't there action in Congress regarding allowing viewers to pick a la carte?

A la carte pricing would be a huge blow to the consumer IMHO. First, you will likely not see a drop in prices so much as you'd end up paying close to the same amount of money for much fewer channels. Also, there are a number of good channels that many people do not watch, but a fairly large minority of people do - like the Food Network, SyFy, History, etc. I could see a number of these types of channels going belly up if they have to compete in ala carte pricing. I'm a big fan of free markets and am against corporate welfare; however, there are certain things that are nice to have access to that would go away if everything is based strictly on the free market. Sadly many of those things would be based around the arts and culture.