football on TV has reached the saturation level. The games simply are not worth what ESPN and others are paying. Most of the cuts are going to have to come out of P5 contracts but we are going to probably remain static at best.

(01-07-2016 01:55 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  I disagree. Very few sports fans dropped cable, they just downgraded the service because espn comes in every package. There really isn't any positive solution for espn other then cutting costs. They already went through layoffs, next up is paying less for content. Hopefully that means cutting ties or reducing content for the SEC/B10 allowing the budget for increase AAC. Time will tell, obviously.

You must not know many of my friends. All the cord-cutters I know say the only thing they miss are the sports channels.

Cord cutters basing it on price don't get a few things....

The apps that are free won't be free when that is the only way you get it. Say your cable company gives you espn3 for free via having the "ESPN tier", when streaming only is how you get that they will start to charge you.

When your cable company isn't getting tv based revenue, the cost of ISP service will go up.

Then people can actually attend games.

(01-07-2016 08:57 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  
Cord cutters basing it on price don't get a few things....

The apps that are free won't be free when that is the only way you get it. Say your cable company gives you espn3 for free via having the "ESPN tier", when streaming only is how you get that they will start to charge you.

When your cable company isn't getting tv based revenue, the cost of ISP service will go up.

While TV/Phone cord cutters have saved some $$$...their biggest leash (internet service) cost continues to soar...as internet service has increase over 90% in the last 8 years and now some carriers are charging close to $100 for high speed/streaming capabilities.

(01-06-2016 05:08 PM)TonyTiger Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 11:04 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 10:52 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 10:27 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  ESPN is dragging down Disney in a massive way. Despite making almost $2 billion from Star Wars Disney stock continues to go down. This might have a large impact in the AAC's ability to negotiate a better (and deserved) contract.

2 billion. Where did you get that number

Heard $1.7 billion in box office. Still has weeks to go in the theaters and the merchandising/licensing etc., probably end up close to $3 billion. Then you have the fact that they will be integrating Star Wars as a much bigger part of the theme park.

My point is that ESPN is an absolute financial mess right now.

So, why aren't our front office personnel trying to find a network that is willing to give a contract that is a little more comparable to our current contribution to college athletics?

The Big East is getting $5M per team, but they haven't produced a NCAA Men's Basketball or NCAA Women's Basketball champion since the break. The AAC has produced both as well as had two BCS Bowl appearances.

If the Fox Sports Network is will to offer $10M+ per team, why is the AAC willing to engage serious contract talks with them?

Ahhhh Breach of contract...

We can not negotiate with anyone right now.

(01-08-2016 05:45 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 08:57 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  
Cord cutters basing it on price don't get a few things....

The apps that are free won't be free when that is the only way you get it. Say your cable company gives you espn3 for free via having the "ESPN tier", when streaming only is how you get that they will start to charge you.

When your cable company isn't getting tv based revenue, the cost of ISP service will go up.

While TV/Phone cord cutters have saved some $$$...their biggest leash (internet service) cost continues to soar...as internet service has increase over 90% in the last 8 years and now some carriers are charging close to $100 for high speed/streaming capabilities.

except for speeds have increased thousands of times over. And more competition is actually lowering the prices in certain markets. Which hopefully will continue to occur.

(01-07-2016 04:21 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 01:55 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  I disagree. Very few sports fans dropped cable, they just downgraded the service because espn comes in every package. There really isn't any positive solution for espn other then cutting costs. They already went through layoffs, next up is paying less for content. Hopefully that means cutting ties or reducing content for the SEC/B10 allowing the budget for increase AAC. Time will tell, obviously.

You must not know many of my friends. All the cord-cutters I know say the only thing they miss are the sports channels.

It was a general statement. Anecdotal evidence from a few of your friends is hardly proving your point. Almost all of my friends say one of the only reason they keep cable is for ESPN (and for some the golf channel), so I guess I am right now. Also, your friends must not be the biggest sports fans missing out on Monday night football, tons of SEC FBall games, tons of NCAA Bball, 30 for 30 etc......or maybe they are stealing espn3 which is a whole other problem for ESPN (and hbo go as well).

(01-08-2016 10:41 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  It was a general statement. Anecdotal evidence from a few of your friends is hardly proving your point. Almost all of my friends say one of the only reason they keep cable is for ESPN (and for some the golf channel), so I guess I am right now.

Haha, you know what I mean though. The people I hang out with are ESPN's (or more importantly advertisers') target demographic, and I think what I see around me is a pretty good representation of what is going on nationwide... like how you can usually tell who is going to win an election when only 10% of the polls are reporting. Also, the term 'cord cutting' is probably the wrong term for me to use. They are not really cord cutting, but rather cord shifting... spending just as much money as they used to spend on Cable alone on improved internet speed, Hulu, Netflix, HBO Go, etc. The one thing they say they wish they could get is ESPN, which happens to be the one thing other than news that they would watch live if they could.

(01-08-2016 10:41 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Also, your friends must not be the biggest sports fans missing out on Monday night football, tons of SEC FBall games, tons of NCAA Bball, 30 for 30 etc......or maybe they are stealing espn3 which is a whole other problem for ESPN (and hbo go as well).

The thing is, you are correct; they still watch it, either at a bar or illegally. Many of them used a relative's cable login to access ESPN online. They are watching, and many of them would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for it... but it's not an option yet.

But my overall point (and it's just MY opinion and apparently in the minority) is that once ESPN's streaming service (which they are advertising A LOT right now) is available a la carte, they will gain back lots of people they have lost, and at 10 or 15 or 20 bucks a month.

(01-08-2016 10:52 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:41 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  It was a general statement. Anecdotal evidence from a few of your friends is hardly proving your point. Almost all of my friends say one of the only reason they keep cable is for ESPN (and for some the golf channel), so I guess I am right now.

Haha, you know what I mean though. The people I hang out with are ESPN's (or more importantly advertisers') target demographic, and I think what I see around me is a pretty good representation of what is going on nationwide... like how you can usually tell who is going to win an election when only 10% of the polls are reporting. Also, the term 'cord cutting' is probably the wrong term for me to use. They are not really cord cutting, but rather cord shifting... spending just as much money as they used to spend on Cable alone on improved internet speed, Hulu, Netflix, HBO Go, etc. The one thing they say they wish they could get is ESPN, which happens to be the one thing other than news that they would watch live if they could.

(01-08-2016 10:41 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Also, your friends must not be the biggest sports fans missing out on Monday night football, tons of SEC FBall games, tons of NCAA Bball, 30 for 30 etc......or maybe they are stealing espn3 which is a whole other problem for ESPN (and hbo go as well).

The thing is, you are correct; they still watch it, either at a bar or illegally. Many of them used a relative's cable login to access ESPN online. They are watching, and many of them would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for it... but it's not an option yet.

But my overall point (and it's just MY opinion and apparently in the minority) is that once ESPN's streaming service (which they are advertising A LOT right now) is available a la carte, they will gain back lots of people they have lost, and at 10 or 15 or 20 bucks a month.

So you do accept that if ESPN offers streaming then the cable companies will either drastically reduce what they pay espn per customer or just tonally cut ties with ESPN, correct? Therefore ESPN will be losing a huge amount of revenue but gaining the cord cutters who would be willing to pay for ESPN through their roku/app TV etc. I would argue the losses would far outweigh the gains and apparently investors agree. That is the huge issue, there is no palatable solution for ESPN, at least according to industry analysts and investors. My point, I think you are looking more at the benefits than the negatives of a standalone espn product. But I do respect your POV.

(01-07-2016 10:18 AM)suburban owl Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 09:34 AM)Chappy Wrote:  This will change when ESPN starts offering its streaming stand alone.

In a way, they kind of already do with SlingTV at $20/ month. I tried it over the holidays, and it was fantastic.

However, Sling is challenged with:

-That subscription is limited to 1 TV (I have 7 due to the kids)
- Comcast/Verizon control the pipes, and have priced their higher end internet offerings that assist live streaming at a price that will limit ESPN's ability to offer content directly.

Consumers will need some new Internet providers to enter the market in order for cord cutting to move to the next level.

How often after you watching sporting events on all 7? I have 5 and that never happens. Its still very cool and beats the previous $180/month I was paying

(01-08-2016 10:52 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:41 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  It was a general statement. Anecdotal evidence from a few of your friends is hardly proving your point. Almost all of my friends say one of the only reason they keep cable is for ESPN (and for some the golf channel), so I guess I am right now.

Haha, you know what I mean though. The people I hang out with are ESPN's (or more importantly advertisers') target demographic, and I think what I see around me is a pretty good representation of what is going on nationwide... like how you can usually tell who is going to win an election when only 10% of the polls are reporting. Also, the term 'cord cutting' is probably the wrong term for me to use. They are not really cord cutting, but rather cord shifting... spending just as much money as they used to spend on Cable alone on improved internet speed, Hulu, Netflix, HBO Go, etc. The one thing they say they wish they could get is ESPN, which happens to be the one thing other than news that they would watch live if they could.

(01-08-2016 10:41 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Also, your friends must not be the biggest sports fans missing out on Monday night football, tons of SEC FBall games, tons of NCAA Bball, 30 for 30 etc......or maybe they are stealing espn3 which is a whole other problem for ESPN (and hbo go as well).

The thing is, you are correct; they still watch it, either at a bar or illegally. Many of them used a relative's cable login to access ESPN online. They are watching, and many of them would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for it... but it's not an option yet.

But my overall point (and it's just MY opinion and apparently in the minority) is that once ESPN's streaming service (which they are advertising A LOT right now) is available a la carte, they will gain back lots of people they have lost, and at 10 or 15 or 20 bucks a month.

The ESPN portion of Sling is no more than $5 a month. And its no contract. I can cancel it at will. They will never get the $20/month price point from consumers. Cable is losing subscribers because their revenue stream was based on the fact that "you MUST have cable" and people cancelled and/or realized they were never home to watch all those channels and that they did not miss most of them when they were gone. Once people realize that they dont "need" cable the jig is up completely.

(01-08-2016 11:54 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:52 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:41 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  It was a general statement. Anecdotal evidence from a few of your friends is hardly proving your point. Almost all of my friends say one of the only reason they keep cable is for ESPN (and for some the golf channel), so I guess I am right now.

Haha, you know what I mean though. The people I hang out with are ESPN's (or more importantly advertisers') target demographic, and I think what I see around me is a pretty good representation of what is going on nationwide... like how you can usually tell who is going to win an election when only 10% of the polls are reporting. Also, the term 'cord cutting' is probably the wrong term for me to use. They are not really cord cutting, but rather cord shifting... spending just as much money as they used to spend on Cable alone on improved internet speed, Hulu, Netflix, HBO Go, etc. The one thing they say they wish they could get is ESPN, which happens to be the one thing other than news that they would watch live if they could.

(01-08-2016 10:41 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Also, your friends must not be the biggest sports fans missing out on Monday night football, tons of SEC FBall games, tons of NCAA Bball, 30 for 30 etc......or maybe they are stealing espn3 which is a whole other problem for ESPN (and hbo go as well).

The thing is, you are correct; they still watch it, either at a bar or illegally. Many of them used a relative's cable login to access ESPN online. They are watching, and many of them would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for it... but it's not an option yet.

But my overall point (and it's just MY opinion and apparently in the minority) is that once ESPN's streaming service (which they are advertising A LOT right now) is available a la carte, they will gain back lots of people they have lost, and at 10 or 15 or 20 bucks a month.

The ESPN portion of Sling is no more than $5 a month. And its no contract. I can cancel it at will. They will never get the $20/month price point from consumers. Cable is losing subscribers because their revenue stream was based on the fact that "you MUST have cable" and people cancelled and/or realized they were never home to watch all those channels and that they did not miss most of them when they were gone. Once people realize that they dont "need" cable the jig is up completely.

I don;t know much about sling. Do you get all the espn channels and espn3?

(01-08-2016 11:42 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  So you do accept that if ESPN offers streaming then the cable companies will either drastically reduce what they pay espn per customer or just tonally cut ties with ESPN, correct?

Not necessarily, because Disney could require them to continue carrying it if they want their other channels. The benefit of a diverse channel lineup - the people who want A&E and Lifetime are probably the people who don't watch ESPN. And their primary audience is old enough that they probably won't bother with the cord cutting; heck, they still read newspapers.

One random thought... Disney owns about a third of Hulu. Could they perhaps be considering selling an ESPN service for cord switchers through Hulu?

(01-08-2016 12:00 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 11:42 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  So you do accept that if ESPN offers streaming then the cable companies will either drastically reduce what they pay espn per customer or just tonally cut ties with ESPN, correct?

Not necessarily, because Disney could require them to continue carrying it if they want their other channels. The benefit of a diverse channel lineup - the people who want A&E and Lifetime are probably the people who don't watch ESPN. And their primary audience is old enough that they probably won't bother with the cord cutting; heck, they still read newspapers.

One random thought... Disney owns about a third of Hulu. Could they perhaps be considering selling an ESPN service for cord switchers through Hulu?

Ya but the cable companies don't pay much for the other Disney owned channels so Disney wouldn't have much negotiating power, ESPN is the golden goose. By offering a streaming ESPN option the cable companies would lose the exclusivity of carrying ESPN so they would offer far less. Consider this, if standalone ESPN was profitable, why has Disney not done it? Here's a good article, there's tons of info on the subject.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...-serv.aspx

Trying to decide if I should click on a link to a website called "fool", lol.

(01-08-2016 12:09 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Consider this, if standalone ESPN was profitable, why has Disney not done it?

That's a fair question. Perhaps the technology needed to execute that without glitches is expensive and takes time to develop/implement, and going in stages is a safer way to roll that kind of technology out.

One thing I think we can agree on is that the model is changing, and ESPN doesn't want to become the next Blockbuster.

(01-08-2016 01:50 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 12:09 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Consider this, if standalone ESPN was profitable, why has Disney not done it?

That's a fair question. Perhaps the technology needed to execute that without glitches is expensive and takes time to develop/implement, and going in stages is a safer way to roll that kind of technology out.

One thing I think we can agree on is that the model is changing, and ESPN doesn't want to become the next Blockbuster.

Right now I think there just isn;t enough cord cutters and/or people with Roku type devices. Also too many old people who would never cut the chord. Like the article I posted stated, it is an option but won;t happen for at least 5 years if not later.

(01-06-2016 03:16 PM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  Star Wars hasn't even open in China yet. I believe it this weekend for China.

Are you joking? The movie has already been distributed to every household in China.

(01-10-2016 10:40 AM)wave97 Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 03:16 PM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  Star Wars hasn't even open in China yet. I believe it this weekend for China.

Are you joking? The movie has already been distributed to every household in China.

I was in Hong Kong for the holidays and it was playing there.