Excerpt:

On Friday, BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield downgraded Disney to "sell" and put a $90 price target on the stock, suggesting it will fall about 16 percent in the next 52 weeks or so.

"Even The Force cannot protect ESPN," Greenfield wrote, accusing management of "overpaying for sports rights based on overly aggressive multichannel video subscriber projections."

Greenfield says Disney's cable network operating income will shrink in fiscal-year 2017, causing total Disney operating income to be flat.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/walt-disney...44805.html

(12-20-2015 06:03 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  [b]"Even The Force cannot protect ESPN," Greenfield wrote, accusing management of "overpaying for sports rights based on overly aggressive multichannel video subscriber projections."[/b]

In other words, that SEC network deal was just plain dumb. The numbers were never realistic.

I hope ESPN suffers. I remember how they would give more coverage to a 3-7 Michigan team than a rising school with a good record like from CUSA or the MAC, etc. Much of their hope was in the larger conferences bringing in money but there are several fans from other conferences as well. I really hope they end up downgrading they have ruined college football IMO.

Still not selling my stock

Me, either. I will purchase more if it hits 90.

(12-20-2015 02:34 PM)SethManKA1 Wrote:  I hope ESPN suffers. I remember how they would give more coverage to a 3-7 Michigan team than a rising school with a good record like from CUSA or the MAC, etc. Much of their hope was in the larger conferences bringing in money but there are several fans from other conferences as well. I really hope they end up downgrading they have ruined college football IMO.

agree.

(12-20-2015 02:34 PM)SethManKA1 Wrote:  I hope ESPN suffers. I remember how they would give more coverage to a 3-7 Michigan team than a rising school with a good record like from CUSA or the MAC, etc. Much of their hope was in the larger conferences bringing in money but there are several fans from other conferences as well.

People aren't going to just sit in front of the TV and watch & listen all day about teams they don't care about. They'll just change the channel. "Everybody will just become fans of whatever we push" is a miscalculation. Ask WWF how that went after they bought WCW. If MLB contracted the Boston Red Sox, people in New England would just stop watching baseball before they became Yankee fans.

The elite P5 games are the big ratings-getters, sure. No problem there. But when they become the sole focus of all the shows that are supposed to be about college football as a whole, you're alienating everybody else. I'm not going to watch 4 hours of Gameday and wrap-up shows just to see my school's score on the screen for 6 seconds.

ESPN's major issues began when they expanded beyond a source for sports journalism and analysis and stated carrying so much live content. That poses an inherent conflict and is a major reason why the midweek MACtion is little more than a three commercial for the weekend's $EC and B1G match ups, with occasional discussion of the teams playing.

That said, ESPN still produces some really good content. I like the current Monday Night Football and 30 for 30 still produces world class documentaries (the occasional dud not withstanding).

ESPN has gone the way of MTV. I remember the good ole days when SportCenter actually showed highlights for every game that happened the day before. MLB, NHL, NBA, NFL, etc...it was all on SportCenter if it had a video camera at it. Now they selectively hype certain games (SEC, Big 10+2, NFL) and completely ignore everything else. I lost all faith in ESPN when they started showing Texas hold'em on TV. I'm pretty sure that there's something in the Bible about poker on prime time TV being a sign of the end times.

(12-20-2015 10:41 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  ESPN's major issues began when they expanded beyond a source for sports journalism and analysis and stated carrying so much live content. That poses an inherent conflict and is a major reason why the midweek MACtion is little more than a three commercial for the weekend's $EC and B1G match ups, with occasional discussion of the teams playing.

That said, ESPN still produces some really good content. I like the current Monday Night Football and 30 for 30 still produces world class documentaries (the occasional dud not withstanding).

30 for 30's are the only saving grace that ESPN has. They can be about subjects that you have no interest in but you'll end up sucked in and watching the whole thing.

(12-20-2015 10:41 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  ESPN's major issues began when they expanded beyond a source for sports journalism and analysis and stated carrying so much live content. That poses an inherent conflict and is a major reason why the midweek MACtion is little more than a three commercial for the weekend's $EC and B1G match ups, with occasional discussion of the teams playing.

Actually. I have the opposite reaction. I want ESPN to be the live content provider... It's the conscious direction to "Embrase Debate" philosophy that I dispise and have turned away from. I want SportsCenter to highlight all the games. Instead, they trimmed back to the highlights of the huge ratings-getters, filled the rest with overanalysis and debate, and provide commentary that the viewer at home is more than able to deduce on their own. I prefer ESPN to simply air the games, and let America react about it without having Stephen A Smith having to give his 8 minute rant about a highlight that used to take 30 seconds. Give me 22 hours of events and contests, and use the 11:00 pm and 1:00 am (EST) SPORTSCENTER to recap the entire world of sports highlights.

FYI, after Marshall's bowl game, I've decided I am joining the cord cutting revolution. We're going to try the start of 2016 without cable television and see how the Netflix/Hulu/over the air channels work for a while.

I cut the cord two years ago and haven't missed it. Buy Chromecast and download the ESPNWatch app (most bowl games are on that) and the TuneIn Radio app and you'll have all the sports you need.

Chromecast is good. But I'd also look at a Roku 3, Amazon TV and Apple TV. All of them (including chromecast) are great in their own way, but work best for a certain kind of customer.

If you're an all Apple guy (if you have an iPhone, MacBook, Apple Watch, tons of iTunes content, etc), Apple TV is probably best for you. Similar things for the others.

I personally have a Roku 3, and it works fantastic for me. It's a good 'jack of all trades' box that's fast and streamlined.

(12-21-2015 12:25 AM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 10:41 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  ESPN's major issues began when they expanded beyond a source for sports journalism and analysis and stated carrying so much live content. That poses an inherent conflict and is a major reason why the midweek MACtion is little more than a three commercial for the weekend's $EC and B1G match ups, with occasional discussion of the teams playing.

Actually. I have the opposite reaction. I want ESPN to be the live content provider... It's the conscious direction to "Embrase Debate" philosophy that I dispise and have turned away from. I want SportsCenter to highlight all the games. Instead, they trimmed back to the highlights of the huge ratings-getters, filled the rest with overanalysis and debate, and provide commentary that the viewer at home is more than able to deduce on their own. I prefer ESPN to simply air the games, and let America react about it without having Stephen A Smith having to give his 8 minute rant about a highlight that used to take 30 seconds. Give me 22 hours of events and contests, and use the 11:00 pm and 1:00 am (EST) SPORTSCENTER to recap the entire world of sports highlights.

FYI, after Marshall's bowl game, I've decided I am joining the cord cutting revolution. We're going to try the start of 2016 without cable television and see how the Netflix/Hulu/over the air channels work for a while.

I cut the cord back in April. Don't miss DIRECTV one bit, I was paying $130/mo for just TV it was nuts. Doesn't make sense, the market is correcting itself with pay TV. It was the equipment fees that became outrageous and not the price of content. I have Sling TV which is $25 a month for me I get the Basic Live TV package ($20/mo) and Sports Extra Pack ($5/mo). It's all I need, I mean I don't even watch that much Sling TV but $25 a month is a kick in the bucket to watch a lot of great games on Saturday.

I also have Amazon Prime, Hulu & Netflix, I use my Mom's Hulu and my Dad's Netflix otherwise I wouldn't use it, the content isn't must-have for me at all. $99 a year for Amazon Prime is great because I have a Kindle Fire & Fire TV Stick so the Amazon Video service and now the companies Amazon Music service are just bonuses because I bought it for the shipping. LOL, I buy a lot of stuff off the website so the 2-day free shipping is great savings.

When you cut the cord it's just what do you really want? For me, it's just sports honestly for when I'm off work which is Saturday, Tuesday & Wednesday. So Sling TV was essential for me so getting Live Sports and since I'm a huge fan of the Walking Dead, it was a no-brainer for me and they've added OnDemand services to it. So $25/mo is great value for me, and if I really want to see something live like Sports, I do have the internet to find it, just usually isn't good quality video but CBSSports.com puts up the SEC Game of the Week and other sites are starting to do that.

Best Internet Package I've seen is Time Warner Cable or Verizon FiOS deal where it's Local TV only & 50/mb Internet Package with HBO & Showtime included for Free for $50/mo. Time Warner Cable will let you just get a CableCard for your service and the TWC TV app is excellent that you don't need equpiment to rent each month. It'll only be time until we get our Cable TV or Satellite TV through Apps on our Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Chromecast, Roku, or Smart TV and just use a TWC TV app or FiOS TV app.

The market is correcting itself by greedy executives such as ESPN who though they could milk the subscribers teet dry. I guess it finally ran out of milk, because it's not worth it. Hell ESPN kicked themselves in their own ass when they added the companies channels to Sling TV. But it's about time, ESPN, USA Network, TNT and all these other high-subscriber channels could only get so much out of the consumer.

(12-20-2015 01:39 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 06:03 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  [b]"Even The Force cannot protect ESPN," Greenfield wrote, accusing management of "overpaying for sports rights based on overly aggressive multichannel video subscriber projections."[/b]

In other words, that SEC network deal was just plain dumb. The numbers were never realistic.

SEC Network actually helped ESPN and the SEC earn new $$$. It's the long-term huge tv sports rights that ESPN spent on that has Disney nervous:

ESPN paid $1.9 Billion ($800 Million increase, +73%) for NFL's MNF Package

ESPN paid $1.4 Billion ($825 Million increase, +143%) for NBA TV rights that don't start till next season.

ESPN paid $608 Million for College Football Playoff TV rights.

ESPN paid $500 Million for SEC ($300 Million) and ACC ($240 Million) long-term tv rights.

ESPN paid $80 Million just for Rose Bowl TV Rights ($42.5 Million increase, 113% increase)

ESPN paid $825 Million for US Open Tennis rights thru 2025.

Other ESPN deals:
$80 Million for Sugar Bowl
$60 Million for Little League World Series

Saving grace for ESPN...over 96% of all sports viewers watch games/sporting events LIVE...which is why TV Advertisers will still pay top $$$ to show their ads on sports programming.