Digital Trends cited the Washington Post who referenced the Hollywood Reporter's article on Olbermann leaving ESPN.

From the Hollywood REporter:

Quote:ESPN president John Skipper has been given a mandate to cut $100 million from the network's budget next year and to cut $250 million in 2017. ESPN says those numbers are "factually incorrect."

If the Hollywood Reporter is right, I can't see how ESPN keeps the Big Ten.

I'm going to keep speculating. If ESPN doesn't have the Big Ten, is it risking subscriber losses in Big Ten Country?

I'm not sure that they are. ESPN is still a necessity for Big Ten football fans, because ESPN has the CFP, ESPN has the Rose Bowl and ESPN has the rest of the Big Ten's bowls. So ESPN isn't going to lose a lot of subscribers if Michigan-Ohio STate and Penn State-Michigan STate are on Big Fox or FS1. They'll lose advertising revenue, which will hurt the ESPN bottom line, but that's what Disney has mandated.

IF the report is true.

I would take OTA games on NBC or FOX any second over ESPN. ESPN will get a share of B1G games with the new TV contract.

$100 million in 2016 -- much of that savings will be reached by cuts in talent and production costs.

One report said that the Times Square studio ESPN used for "Olbermann" was costing ESPN $44 million/year, not including whatever they were paying Olbermann and his staff. So ending "Olbermann" saved them $50 million/year right there. They probably saved another $20 million/year or so by letting Simmons go and pulling the plug on Grantland. Maybe at least $10 million/year more by letting Cowherd and some other personalities go.

So that first $100 million was relatively easy. If they have to cut another $250 million out of the 2016 budget to make their 2017 target, that will probably impact rights fees.

They ain't squeezing a drop out of the P5. Tell ya that right now.

Wanna save money? Go squeeze NASCAR, golf, tennis, and other sports that don't matter. And trim tour own production costs and talent salaries.

The same number of people, if not more, want to tune into telecasts of college football games. So we (P5) sure as heck ain't taking a cut in our TV money.

You folks realize that ESPN has 8000 employees---4600 at the Bristol campus alone. Ive said it before and Ill say it again---the only thing that give ESPN value is its catalogue of sports rights. They will cut everything before they start to cut sports rights (including a big chunk of those 8K employees). If things get really bad, the reality is, ESPN would be better off cutting ONE of their massive pro-sports league contracts than any of their college contracts. The pro contracts cost billions and only fill a small portion of their broadcast slots. If they dropped the NBA, they could fill most of that empty space with college basketball and college baseball. Sure, it doesn't have the drawing power of the NBA, but if the network was really in trouble, dropping about a billion in expenses and still having the NFL, MLB, and tons of college content to keep the league viable would knock them solidly back in the black.

Lol that Disney is bossing ESPN.

(01-28-2016 06:14 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Lol that Disney is bossing ESPN.

Mickey signs all of the checks!

(01-28-2016 06:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 06:14 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Lol that Disney is bossing ESPN.

Mickey signs all of the checks!

Then Skipper will do what Disney says regarding the upcoming B1G rights.

(01-28-2016 04:25 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Digital Trends cited the Washington Post who referenced the Hollywood Reporter's article on Olbermann leaving ESPN.

From the Hollywood REporter:

Quote:ESPN president John Skipper has been given a mandate to cut $100 million from the network's budget next year and to cut $250 million in 2017. ESPN says those numbers are "factually incorrect."

If the Hollywood Reporter is right, I can't see how ESPN keeps the Big Ten.

I'm going to keep speculating. If ESPN doesn't have the Big Ten, is it risking subscriber losses in Big Ten Country?

I'm not sure that they are. ESPN is still a necessity for Big Ten football fans, because ESPN has the CFP, ESPN has the Rose Bowl and ESPN has the rest of the Big Ten's bowls. So ESPN isn't going to lose a lot of subscribers if Michigan-Ohio STate and Penn State-Michigan STate are on Big Fox or FS1. They'll lose advertising revenue, which will hurt the ESPN bottom line, but that's what Disney has mandated.

IF the report is true.

I doubt that they'll lose a ton more subscribers than they otherwise would, but their carriage rates will take a hit next time they renegotiate them.

...unless they replace the lost content with something good.

(01-28-2016 06:37 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 04:25 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Digital Trends cited the Washington Post who referenced the Hollywood Reporter's article on Olbermann leaving ESPN.

From the Hollywood REporter:

Quote:ESPN president John Skipper has been given a mandate to cut $100 million from the network's budget next year and to cut $250 million in 2017. ESPN says those numbers are "factually incorrect."

If the Hollywood Reporter is right, I can't see how ESPN keeps the Big Ten.

I'm going to keep speculating. If ESPN doesn't have the Big Ten, is it risking subscriber losses in Big Ten Country?

I'm not sure that they are. ESPN is still a necessity for Big Ten football fans, because ESPN has the CFP, ESPN has the Rose Bowl and ESPN has the rest of the Big Ten's bowls. So ESPN isn't going to lose a lot of subscribers if Michigan-Ohio STate and Penn State-Michigan STate are on Big Fox or FS1. They'll lose advertising revenue, which will hurt the ESPN bottom line, but that's what Disney has mandated.

IF the report is true.

I doubt that they'll lose a ton more subscribers than they otherwise would, but their carriage rates will take a hit next time they renegotiate them.

...unless they replace the lost content with something good.

Doubt it would hurt either their subscription numbers or rates if ESPN gets only, say, one Saturday Big Ten game at noon Eastern and leaves the rest to Fox/FS1. ESPN has more than enough attractive inventory to go noon-to-midnight Eastern time on every college football Saturday, on both ESPN and ESPN2, even if they only have one Big Ten game/week.

They are selling off MAC games to CBS. Not a lot of dollars but every little bit helps

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

(01-28-2016 04:25 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Digital Trends cited the Washington Post who referenced the Hollywood Reporter's article on Olbermann leaving ESPN.

From the Hollywood REporter:

Quote:ESPN president John Skipper has been given a mandate to cut $100 million from the network's budget next year and to cut $250 million in 2017. ESPN says those numbers are "factually incorrect."

If the Hollywood Reporter is right, I can't see how ESPN keeps the Big Ten.

I'm going to keep speculating. If ESPN doesn't have the Big Ten, is it risking subscriber losses in Big Ten Country?

I'm not sure that they are. ESPN is still a necessity for Big Ten football fans, because ESPN has the CFP, ESPN has the Rose Bowl and ESPN has the rest of the Big Ten's bowls. So ESPN isn't going to lose a lot of subscribers if Michigan-Ohio STate and Penn State-Michigan STate are on Big Fox or FS1. They'll lose advertising revenue, which will hurt the ESPN bottom line, but that's what Disney has mandated.

IF the report is true.

Or they could enhance the basketball value of the Big 10 with 6 ACC schools and enhance the football value of the SEC with 6 ACC schools which would dump 69 million in TV contracts from the three unlucky schools left out of the moves and reduce by a little over 60% of the total cost of the 6 that move to the Big 10 which is about another 65 million. Such a move and retention of Big 10 rights would give them the lion's share of hoops in the Winter and early Spring while garnering the best content multipliers for SEC football in the late Summer through mid January. All while enhancing the best baseball from college by giving the Big 10 a huge stake in the sport with the 6 ACC schools they land and giving the SEC even more.

That would leave them 115 million to take out of more talking heads, and they could sell the LHN to FOX, or just encourage the Big 12 to take their best 8 to the PAC, close the LHN down, and for distribution they and FOX would each gain a 25% share in the PACN. Such a move would save them another 66 million. Now a few less talking heads actually improves the whole thing.

So there is more than one way to trim this fat, and some of them don't include giving up the two most must see conferences.

And what's even more attractive about this solution, if you are ESPN, is that you aren't giving up access to anyone to get there. T1 is the best content to own for Big 10 football. Big 10 basketball is deep enough for everyone to broadcast. Owning T2 & T3 SEC football with an enhanced set of football schools is prime. Improving the viewership of the PAC by placing Big 12 schools there is also a plus for both FOX & ESPN. There is plenty there to split, and that's what they have been doing already.

While cable subscribers are dropping in droves Netflix keeps growing:

"As of mid-March 2013, Netflix had 33 million subscribers.[11] That number increased to 36.3 million subscribers (29.2 million in the U.S.) in April 2013.[12] As of September 2013, for that year's third quarter report, Netflix reported its total of global streaming subscribers at 40.4 million (31.2 million in the U.S.).[13] By the fourth quarter of 2013, Netflix reported 33.1 million U.S. subscribers.[14] By September 2014, Netflix had subscribers in over 40 countries, with intentions of expanding their services in unreached countries.[15] As of October 2015, Netflix reported 69.17 million subscribers worldwide, including more than 43 million in the U.S.[16] In January 2016, Netflix reported that it had 74 million subscribers, including 44 million in the U.S.[4]"

Smart money is betting the future of live collegiate sports is in a subscriber service.
CJ

(01-28-2016 06:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You folks realize that ESPN has 8000 employees---4600 at the Bristol campus alone. Ive said it before and Ill say it again---the only thing that give ESPN value is its catalogue of sports rights. They will cut everything before they start to cut sports rights (including a big chunk of those 8K employees). If things get really bad, the reality is, ESPN would be better off cutting ONE of their massive pro-sports league contracts than any of their college contracts. The pro contracts cost billions and only fill a small portion of their broadcast slots. If they dropped the NBA, they could fill most of that empty space with college basketball and college baseball. Sure, it doesn't have the drawing power of the NBA, but if the network was really in trouble, dropping about a billion in expenses and still having the NFL, MLB, and tons of college content to keep the league viable would knock them solidly back in the black.

Except they CAN'T cut any pro sports contracts in 2017. Those contracts are long term. They CAN save $100M in rights fees by letting the Big Ten go to Fox. That deal is expiring.

(01-28-2016 08:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 06:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You folks realize that ESPN has 8000 employees---4600 at the Bristol campus alone. Ive said it before and Ill say it again---the only thing that give ESPN value is its catalogue of sports rights. They will cut everything before they start to cut sports rights (including a big chunk of those 8K employees). If things get really bad, the reality is, ESPN would be better off cutting ONE of their massive pro-sports league contracts than any of their college contracts. The pro contracts cost billions and only fill a small portion of their broadcast slots. If they dropped the NBA, they could fill most of that empty space with college basketball and college baseball. Sure, it doesn't have the drawing power of the NBA, but if the network was really in trouble, dropping about a billion in expenses and still having the NFL, MLB, and tons of college content to keep the league viable would knock them solidly back in the black.

Except they CAN'T cut any pro sports contracts in 2017. Those contracts are long term. They CAN save $100M in rights fees by letting the Big Ten go to Fox. That deal is expiring.

Number of people wanting to tune into B1G telecasts is only going up. Certainly not dropping. And our fans have money too.

B1G ain't accepting less money. ESPN can walk, if it thinks it's going to squeeze us.

(01-28-2016 07:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 06:37 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 04:25 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Digital Trends cited the Washington Post who referenced the Hollywood Reporter's article on Olbermann leaving ESPN.

From the Hollywood REporter:

Quote:ESPN president John Skipper has been given a mandate to cut $100 million from the network's budget next year and to cut $250 million in 2017. ESPN says those numbers are "factually incorrect."

If the Hollywood Reporter is right, I can't see how ESPN keeps the Big Ten.

I'm going to keep speculating. If ESPN doesn't have the Big Ten, is it risking subscriber losses in Big Ten Country?

I'm not sure that they are. ESPN is still a necessity for Big Ten football fans, because ESPN has the CFP, ESPN has the Rose Bowl and ESPN has the rest of the Big Ten's bowls. So ESPN isn't going to lose a lot of subscribers if Michigan-Ohio STate and Penn State-Michigan STate are on Big Fox or FS1. They'll lose advertising revenue, which will hurt the ESPN bottom line, but that's what Disney has mandated.

IF the report is true.

I doubt that they'll lose a ton more subscribers than they otherwise would, but their carriage rates will take a hit next time they renegotiate them.

...unless they replace the lost content with something good.

Doubt it would hurt either their subscription numbers or rates if ESPN gets only, say, one Saturday Big Ten game at noon Eastern and leaves the rest to Fox/FS1. ESPN has more than enough attractive inventory to go noon-to-midnight Eastern time on every college football Saturday, on both ESPN and ESPN2, even if they only have one Big Ten game/week.

Works for me!

(01-28-2016 08:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 06:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You folks realize that ESPN has 8000 employees---4600 at the Bristol campus alone. Ive said it before and Ill say it again---the only thing that give ESPN value is its catalogue of sports rights. They will cut everything before they start to cut sports rights (including a big chunk of those 8K employees). If things get really bad, the reality is, ESPN would be better off cutting ONE of their massive pro-sports league contracts than any of their college contracts. The pro contracts cost billions and only fill a small portion of their broadcast slots. If they dropped the NBA, they could fill most of that empty space with college basketball and college baseball. Sure, it doesn't have the drawing power of the NBA, but if the network was really in trouble, dropping about a billion in expenses and still having the NFL, MLB, and tons of college content to keep the league viable would knock them solidly back in the black.

Except they CAN'T cut any pro sports contracts in 2017. Those contracts are long term. They CAN save $100M in rights fees by letting the Big Ten go to Fox. That deal is expiring.

Im talking long term with that move. That 8K employees will be where the cuts are until there is no more savings to be gained. That said, look at the Netflix model---that's where ESPN is headed long term. Cardinal Jim just noted that 69 million subscribers are willing to pay 10 bucks a month for a streaming service. Considering that the majority of US homes still DONT have a streaming device---that number will likely grow. If ESPN can get 60 million subscribers at $10 bucks a month--they would have more revenue than they do now. Im guessing at the $10 dollar mark, they can probably get 70 million subscribers.

(01-28-2016 09:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 08:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 06:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You folks realize that ESPN has 8000 employees---4600 at the Bristol campus alone. Ive said it before and Ill say it again---the only thing that give ESPN value is its catalogue of sports rights. They will cut everything before they start to cut sports rights (including a big chunk of those 8K employees). If things get really bad, the reality is, ESPN would be better off cutting ONE of their massive pro-sports league contracts than any of their college contracts. The pro contracts cost billions and only fill a small portion of their broadcast slots. If they dropped the NBA, they could fill most of that empty space with college basketball and college baseball. Sure, it doesn't have the drawing power of the NBA, but if the network was really in trouble, dropping about a billion in expenses and still having the NFL, MLB, and tons of college content to keep the league viable would knock them solidly back in the black.

Except they CAN'T cut any pro sports contracts in 2017. Those contracts are long term. They CAN save $100M in rights fees by letting the Big Ten go to Fox. That deal is expiring.

Im talking long term with that move. That 8K employees will be where the cuts are until there is no more savings to be gained. That said, look at the Netflix model---that's where ESPN is headed long term. Cardinal Jim just noted that 69 million subscribers are willing to pay 10 bucks a month for a streaming service. Considering that the majority of US homes still DONT have a streaming device---that number will likely grow. If ESPN can get 60 million subscribers at $10 bucks a month--they would have more revenue than they do now. Im guessing at the $10 dollar mark, they can probably get 70 million subscribers.

Great idea.

Pay $10 per channel. That's a much better deal than $50 for 100 channels.

(01-28-2016 09:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 09:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 08:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 06:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You folks realize that ESPN has 8000 employees---4600 at the Bristol campus alone. Ive said it before and Ill say it again---the only thing that give ESPN value is its catalogue of sports rights. They will cut everything before they start to cut sports rights (including a big chunk of those 8K employees). If things get really bad, the reality is, ESPN would be better off cutting ONE of their massive pro-sports league contracts than any of their college contracts. The pro contracts cost billions and only fill a small portion of their broadcast slots. If they dropped the NBA, they could fill most of that empty space with college basketball and college baseball. Sure, it doesn't have the drawing power of the NBA, but if the network was really in trouble, dropping about a billion in expenses and still having the NFL, MLB, and tons of college content to keep the league viable would knock them solidly back in the black.

Except they CAN'T cut any pro sports contracts in 2017. Those contracts are long term. They CAN save $100M in rights fees by letting the Big Ten go to Fox. That deal is expiring.

Im talking long term with that move. That 8K employees will be where the cuts are until there is no more savings to be gained. That said, look at the Netflix model---that's where ESPN is headed long term. Cardinal Jim just noted that 69 million subscribers are willing to pay 10 bucks a month for a streaming service. Considering that the majority of US homes still DONT have a streaming device---that number will likely grow. If ESPN can get 60 million subscribers at $10 bucks a month--they would have more revenue than they do now. Im guessing at the $10 dollar mark, they can probably get 70 million subscribers.

Great idea.

Pay $10 per channel. That's a much better deal than $50 for 100 channels.

I would rather pay $30 bucks for the three channels I watch: ESPNS, AMC and FX than $50 for 97 more channels like the BTN that I don't watch.

Add in Netflix and I'm happy: saving money and extending my long skinny middle finger northward in the direction of Delaney.....

I have a sneaking suspicion that I won't be the only one.
CJ

(01-28-2016 06:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  They ain't squeezing a drop out of the P5. Tell ya that right now.

Wanna save money? Go squeeze NASCAR, golf, tennis, and other sports that don't matter. And trim tour own production costs and talent salaries.

The same number of people, if not more, want to tune into telecasts of college football games. So we (P5) sure as heck ain't taking a cut in our TV money.

Golf and tennis are great for summer months and bring in very desirable advertisers with the demographics they bring.