(03-15-2016 11:38 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  But if this article is accurate and cord cutting is going to kill the conference networks due to a dramatic shift in cultural attitudes towards cable sports programming, doesn't that make the Big Ten's additions of Maryland and Rutgers egregious - as they were done specifically for that reason?

Or are we operating under the assumption that these cultural trends won't apply to the B1G and SEC because they already have their networks? That seems naive to me but what do I know?

Cord cutting, as long as it continues at the current rate, is a slow death, not a quick one.

Cable/satellite subscriptions are currently dropping at a rate of 2-3% per year. If ESPN had 100 million subscribers in "year 1", then, if they lose 2.5% each year, in "year 11" they still have 77.6 million subscribers. That's a huge drop in revenue, but it's still a long way ahead of having nothing.

Now, if cab/sat subscriptions start dropping at a rate of 10% per year, then in 10 years a channel with 100 million subscribers would drop to 34.9 million, which is obviously much more drastic. That would mean that every channel getting per-subscriber revenue will lose more and more revenue each year and after 10 years they'll be getting only about one-third of this year's annual subscriber revenue.

And of course if sports channels get booted off of basic subscription tiers onto premium tiers where each subscriber has to choose the channel, a la HBO, then the model changes completely.

(03-15-2016 09:46 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 09:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  You are adding 2+2 and coming up with whatever number you choose to come up with.

I don't think any of these things are related to each other at all. The complications surrounding the launch of the ACC Network has nothing at all to do with the potential launch of the Big 12 Network. That is a University of Texas issue, not an ESPN or Fox or ACC issue.

Also, I don't think the fact that the ACC failing to launch a network by July 1, 2016 necessarily means that they can't launch a network down the road.

I just think you're reaching here. However, it is all good. People say the craziest bullshitt on this board all the time and pass it off as fact, so you are certainly in good company

Spend a minute and read the article.

Networks have no interest in anymore conference networks.

Read the name of the author of the article. Chadd (two ds) makes the Dude of WV look credible.

(03-15-2016 11:10 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:00 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  If the Big 10 and SEC are truly headed towards that goal then we are on the way to 2 conferences of 28-32 teams.

Just keep grabbing teams from the Big 10, Pac 12, and ACC that you don't share a region with.

(03-15-2016 10:23 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:07 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  That's an important point. The Big 10 and SEC network aren't going to make 5 Million then 10 million then 20 Million in growth every few years.

Like ESPN's overall bottom line the numbers will flatten or even decrease.

I'm sure they'll still generate plenty of money, but it won't just keep growing. It's a saturated market.

That said I'm fine if the ACC gets the guaranteed money with the addition they are still working on additional revenue streams.

The ACC just take the money and stop. That's what happened in around 2009-2010 when the ACC took the money rather than the risk of the network

(03-15-2016 09:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The real question Big Ten people need to ask themselves is how long before BTN revenues flatten out and even start to drop thanks to cord cutting (remember, that money is NOT guaranteed).

Don't worry about the ACC just yet. The extra $45 million IS guaranteed, so that's the floor. Be sure that ESPN is motivated to find a way to turn that $45 M from a pure expense into an investment...

The money gap will be managed and, eventually, shrink. Bookmark this if you wish - I'm confident.

Yes revenue for those networks will level off. That is the maturity stage. BTN isn't at that stage yet.

You keep growing the revenue by expanding. So there is room for more potential growth in the revenue, but eventually it will top out and mature.

Affiliate membership allows for a lot of expansion....LaCrosse and Hockey are two examples.

Well, Hopkins was right there and the ACC passed. Was it a mistake to?

(03-15-2016 11:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To assume BTN and SECN revenue will continue to grow ignores the probability that millions of current subscribers will likely cancel their subscriptions in the next few years.

That's just wishful thinking. The SEC has the highest percentage of households actually subscribing and watching, the Big 10 is second followed very very closely by the Big 12 in actual percentage of engaged homes. The ACC is woefully off the pace.

Rabid fan bases are not going to cut the one thing they most like to watch on television, especially in a region of the country happy to finally have Uverse and relieved not to have to fool with a dish in a rainstorm.

What will eventually hurt the SEC and Big 10 will be the death of Boomers and X'ers both of which still love live sports. The super coddled electric device crowd (Millennials) never played team sports in sufficient numbers to appreciate the nuances of the games (basketball, baseball, softball, football) to have enough interest to watch. When they are in the majority all team sports will fade in their ability to generate revenue. But that's fine. Farmville, DirtyBirds, and other such game skills won't help them anyway when the Chinese come to collect their debt so what the hell!

(03-15-2016 01:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:38 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  But if this article is accurate and cord cutting is going to kill the conference networks due to a dramatic shift in cultural attitudes towards cable sports programming, doesn't that make the Big Ten's additions of Maryland and Rutgers egregious - as they were done specifically for that reason?

Or are we operating under the assumption that these cultural trends won't apply to the B1G and SEC because they already have their networks? That seems naive to me but what do I know?

Cord cutting, as long as it continues at the current rate, is a slow death, not a quick one.

Cable/satellite subscriptions are currently dropping at a rate of 2-3% per year. If ESPN had 100 million subscribers in "year 1", then, if they lose 2.5% each year, in "year 11" they still have 77.6 million subscribers. That's a huge drop in revenue, but it's still a long way ahead of having nothing.

Now, if cab/sat subscriptions start dropping at a rate of 10% per year, then in 10 years a channel with 100 million subscribers would drop to 34.9 million, which is obviously much more drastic. That would mean that every channel getting per-subscriber revenue will lose more and more revenue each year and after 10 years they'll be getting only about one-third of this year's annual subscriber revenue.

And of course if sports channels get booted off of basic subscription tiers onto premium tiers where each subscriber has to choose the channel, a la HBO, then the model changes completely.

What floors me Wedge is that any clear thinking ACC fan would see cord cutting as a good thing. If the cord cutting ever did mandate change for the Big 10 and SEC it would be toward some form of streaming where content games would be the revenue providers. The ACC is content poor for the biggest money making sport. F.S.U. and Clemson are stellar but beyond that you have Virginia Tech and Miami with which to try to offer more than just a few quality games.

The ACC was built with the cable footprint model in mind and I would argue would be the least suited for movement into a content driven pay model.

And to pick up on what Yinzer was pointing out earlier, if the move is away from cable footprint to content then I agree with you 100% that Rutgers and Maryland would begin to look like boneheaded moves.

The reality here is that people cutting the cord are not from a demographic that is going to prove to be live sports enthusiasts in the numbers of their predecessors. So I doubt that the SECN or Big 10N will feel the impact for another 2 decades. And in that time they will most assuredly start transitioning their programming to newer delivery models.

(03-15-2016 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 01:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:38 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  But if this article is accurate and cord cutting is going to kill the conference networks due to a dramatic shift in cultural attitudes towards cable sports programming, doesn't that make the Big Ten's additions of Maryland and Rutgers egregious - as they were done specifically for that reason?

Or are we operating under the assumption that these cultural trends won't apply to the B1G and SEC because they already have their networks? That seems naive to me but what do I know?

Cord cutting, as long as it continues at the current rate, is a slow death, not a quick one.

Cable/satellite subscriptions are currently dropping at a rate of 2-3% per year. If ESPN had 100 million subscribers in "year 1", then, if they lose 2.5% each year, in "year 11" they still have 77.6 million subscribers. That's a huge drop in revenue, but it's still a long way ahead of having nothing.

Now, if cab/sat subscriptions start dropping at a rate of 10% per year, then in 10 years a channel with 100 million subscribers would drop to 34.9 million, which is obviously much more drastic. That would mean that every channel getting per-subscriber revenue will lose more and more revenue each year and after 10 years they'll be getting only about one-third of this year's annual subscriber revenue.

And of course if sports channels get booted off of basic subscription tiers onto premium tiers where each subscriber has to choose the channel, a la HBO, then the model changes completely.

What floors me Wedge is that any clear thinking ACC fan would see cord cutting as a good thing. If the cord cutting ever did mandate change for the Big 10 and SEC it would be toward some form of streaming where content games would be the revenue providers. The ACC is content poor for the biggest money making sport. F.S.U. and Clemson are stellar but beyond that you have Virginia Tech and Miami with which to try to offer more than just a few quality games.

The ACC was built with the cable footprint model in mind and I would argue would be the least suited for movement into a content driven pay model.

And to pick up on what Yinzer was pointing out earlier, if the move is away from cable footprint to content then I agree with you 100% that Rutgers and Maryland would begin to look like boneheaded moves.

The reality here is that people cutting the cord are not from a demographic that is going to prove to be live sports enthusiasts in the numbers of their predecessors. So I doubt that the SECN or Big 10N will feel the impact for another 2 decades. And in that time they will most assuredly start transitioning their programming to newer delivery models.

cord cutting while small now is not only getting bigger each quarter over "expectations" the amount of that increase each quarter is growing faster than "expectations" and it appears that will only continue

so the numbers dropping and the acceleration of the numbers dropping is growing faster than "expectations"

and I have to disagree with the comment about those that are dropping cable

one of the major worries is the number of young people that are not even considering cable and will possibly never have it or will only have it for a brief period

cable companies are pinched from both sides....older people that just do not see the sense in paying all that money for a lot of stuff they do not watch (some of these MIGHT keep ESPN and the SECn or the like and ditch MTV and Bravo) and young people that get content from other means

(03-15-2016 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To assume BTN and SECN revenue will continue to grow ignores the probability that millions of current subscribers will likely cancel their subscriptions in the next few years.

That's just wishful thinking. The SEC has the highest percentage of households actually subscribing and watching, the Big 10 is second followed very very closely by the Big 12 in actual percentage of engaged homes. The ACC is woefully off the pace.

Rabid fan bases are not going to cut the one thing they most like to watch on television, especially in a region of the country happy to finally have Uverse and relieved not to have to fool with a dish in a rainstorm.

What will eventually hurt the SEC and Big 10 will be the death of Boomers and X'ers both of which still love live sports. The super coddled electric device crowd (Millennials) never played team sports in sufficient numbers to appreciate the nuances of the games (basketball, baseball, softball, football) to have enough interest to watch. When they are in the majority all team sports will fade in their ability to generate revenue. But that's fine. Farmville, DirtyBirds, and other such game skills won't help them anyway when the Chinese come to collect their debt so what the hell!

You don't get the point at all JR. Its not the fans cutting. Its the non-fans who are supporting the sports fans. That dysfunction is what makes ESPN and the networks so profitable.

(03-15-2016 12:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  But, take a look at the time table and the Big 12 expansion vote to take place? Could Big 12 be able to turn the Longhorns Network into a Big 12 Network? Expect Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Cincinnati, Memphis and Louisville shoot to the top of the expansion list to go to 16 teams. All 6 have very good football and basketball and could draw viewerships. That is 4 ACC schools that could vote to get rid of the GoRs. Look for the Big 10 to go after Virginia and North Carolina. That would be 6. SEC could go after Virginia Tech and NC State. That is 8 of the 14 full members Notre Dame is not a full member. Would that be enough to get rid of the GoRs? If not? Could Big 10 try and get Notre Dame and Duke as well? Boston College, Wake Forest, Miami, Syracuse and Pittsburgh left out in the cold. ACC could reload with Temple, UConn., Navy, UCF, USF, Old Dominion, Buffalo, Toledo and Georgia State.

"ACC could reload with Temple, UCONN, Navy, UCF, USF, Old Dominion, Buffalo, Toledo".....One of the greatest sentences ever written on here.
Cheers!.

(03-15-2016 08:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To assume BTN and SECN revenue will continue to grow ignores the probability that millions of current subscribers will likely cancel their subscriptions in the next few years.

That's just wishful thinking. The SEC has the highest percentage of households actually subscribing and watching, the Big 10 is second followed very very closely by the Big 12 in actual percentage of engaged homes. The ACC is woefully off the pace.

Rabid fan bases are not going to cut the one thing they most like to watch on television, especially in a region of the country happy to finally have Uverse and relieved not to have to fool with a dish in a rainstorm.

What will eventually hurt the SEC and Big 10 will be the death of Boomers and X'ers both of which still love live sports. The super coddled electric device crowd (Millennials) never played team sports in sufficient numbers to appreciate the nuances of the games (basketball, baseball, softball, football) to have enough interest to watch. When they are in the majority all team sports will fade in their ability to generate revenue. But that's fine. Farmville, DirtyBirds, and other such game skills won't help them anyway when the Chinese come to collect their debt so what the hell!

You don't get the point at all JR. Its not the fans cutting. Its the non-fans who are supporting the sports fans. That dysfunction is what makes ESPN and the networks so profitable.

I agree, but even some of us sports fanatics are cutting it. I'm 39, and for the first time in my life went a college athletic season without ESPN/any other sports cable networks. Two of my brothers did a couple years before me, all 3 of us college grads and one of us who ran track at Iowa. We are all in our 30's and life time college sports fanatics who are disgusted with the greed and strongly dislike ESPN. I subscribed to BTN for 7 years to watch college wrestling. I'll NEVER pay a dime for that again. What started out as a protest has actually turned into me losing some interest in college sports.....I never thought that possible... I still follow college athletics but something has been changing the past year for me. I know I'm not alone.
Cheers!

(03-15-2016 08:36 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 08:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To assume BTN and SECN revenue will continue to grow ignores the probability that millions of current subscribers will likely cancel their subscriptions in the next few years.

That's just wishful thinking. The SEC has the highest percentage of households actually subscribing and watching, the Big 10 is second followed very very closely by the Big 12 in actual percentage of engaged homes. The ACC is woefully off the pace.

Rabid fan bases are not going to cut the one thing they most like to watch on television, especially in a region of the country happy to finally have Uverse and relieved not to have to fool with a dish in a rainstorm.

What will eventually hurt the SEC and Big 10 will be the death of Boomers and X'ers both of which still love live sports. The super coddled electric device crowd (Millennials) never played team sports in sufficient numbers to appreciate the nuances of the games (basketball, baseball, softball, football) to have enough interest to watch. When they are in the majority all team sports will fade in their ability to generate revenue. But that's fine. Farmville, DirtyBirds, and other such game skills won't help them anyway when the Chinese come to collect their debt so what the hell!

You don't get the point at all JR. Its not the fans cutting. Its the non-fans who are supporting the sports fans. That dysfunction is what makes ESPN and the networks so profitable.

I agree, but even some of us sports fanatics are cutting it. I'm 39, and for the first time in my life went a college athletic season without ESPN/any other sports cable networks. Two of my brothers did a couple years before me, all 3 of us college grads and one of us who ran track at Iowa. We are all in our 30's and life time college sports fanatics who are disgusted with the greed and strongly dislike ESPN. I subscribed to BTN for 7 years to watch college wrestling. I'll NEVER pay a dime for that again. What started out as a protest has actually turned into me losing some interest in college sports.....I never thought that possible... I still follow college athletics but something has been changing the past year for me. I know I'm not alone.
Cheers!

at this point I can't remember when I actually had cable it has been at least 5 years maybe longer

I have missed probably 6 college games I wanted to watch in that time period because I could not find a working link or the link was unwatchable

I even saw the terrible Manny Vs Mayweather fight online for free (glad I did not get conned into watching that nonsense at least with Mike T. you got to see some guy get his head knocked off on 20 seconds for your $15 dollars)

at this point I like you just wish to give no money to cable companies or "content" providers especially when there are 200 channels of crap and 5 channels I might watch of they were not having a rerun marathon every day all day

for me it was as much or more about the agenda driven channels being crammed onto my bill and I ditched cable before the sports channels got out of control

(03-15-2016 08:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 08:36 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 08:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To assume BTN and SECN revenue will continue to grow ignores the probability that millions of current subscribers will likely cancel their subscriptions in the next few years.

That's just wishful thinking. The SEC has the highest percentage of households actually subscribing and watching, the Big 10 is second followed very very closely by the Big 12 in actual percentage of engaged homes. The ACC is woefully off the pace.

Rabid fan bases are not going to cut the one thing they most like to watch on television, especially in a region of the country happy to finally have Uverse and relieved not to have to fool with a dish in a rainstorm.

What will eventually hurt the SEC and Big 10 will be the death of Boomers and X'ers both of which still love live sports. The super coddled electric device crowd (Millennials) never played team sports in sufficient numbers to appreciate the nuances of the games (basketball, baseball, softball, football) to have enough interest to watch. When they are in the majority all team sports will fade in their ability to generate revenue. But that's fine. Farmville, DirtyBirds, and other such game skills won't help them anyway when the Chinese come to collect their debt so what the hell!

You don't get the point at all JR. Its not the fans cutting. Its the non-fans who are supporting the sports fans. That dysfunction is what makes ESPN and the networks so profitable.

I agree, but even some of us sports fanatics are cutting it. I'm 39, and for the first time in my life went a college athletic season without ESPN/any other sports cable networks. Two of my brothers did a couple years before me, all 3 of us college grads and one of us who ran track at Iowa. We are all in our 30's and life time college sports fanatics who are disgusted with the greed and strongly dislike ESPN. I subscribed to BTN for 7 years to watch college wrestling. I'll NEVER pay a dime for that again. What started out as a protest has actually turned into me losing some interest in college sports.....I never thought that possible... I still follow college athletics but something has been changing the past year for me. I know I'm not alone.
Cheers!

at this point I can't remember when I actually had cable it has been at least 5 years maybe longer

I have missed probably 6 college games I wanted to watch in that time period because I could not find a working link or the link was unwatchable

I even saw the terrible Manny Vs Mayweather fight online for free (glad I did not get conned into watching that nonsense at least with Mike T. you got to see some guy get his head knocked off on 20 seconds for your $15 dollars)

at this point I like you just wish to give no money to cable companies or "content" providers especially when there are 200 channels of crap and 5 channels I might watch of they were not having a rerun marathon every day all day

for me it was as much or more about the agenda driven channels being crammed onto my bill and I ditched cable before the sports channels got out of control

Great post. I too watched a big PPV for free: Holly Holm vs Rhonda Rousey---there's ways to do it. Here's to more of us watching college football without paying for it until these colleges come back to earth. It's getting out of hand.
Cheers!

(03-15-2016 08:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To assume BTN and SECN revenue will continue to grow ignores the probability that millions of current subscribers will likely cancel their subscriptions in the next few years.

That's just wishful thinking. The SEC has the highest percentage of households actually subscribing and watching, the Big 10 is second followed very very closely by the Big 12 in actual percentage of engaged homes. The ACC is woefully off the pace.

Rabid fan bases are not going to cut the one thing they most like to watch on television, especially in a region of the country happy to finally have Uverse and relieved not to have to fool with a dish in a rainstorm.

What will eventually hurt the SEC and Big 10 will be the death of Boomers and X'ers both of which still love live sports. The super coddled electric device crowd (Millennials) never played team sports in sufficient numbers to appreciate the nuances of the games (basketball, baseball, softball, football) to have enough interest to watch. When they are in the majority all team sports will fade in their ability to generate revenue. But that's fine. Farmville, DirtyBirds, and other such game skills won't help them anyway when the Chinese come to collect their debt so what the hell!

You don't get the point at all JR. Its not the fans cutting. Its the non-fans who are supporting the sports fans. That dysfunction is what makes ESPN and the networks so profitable.

I totally get it Bullet. It just doesn't apply to the SEC. We have the highest saturation of participating households in the nation. What about that do you not get. We will be affected, just not much when compared to other conferences. I don't know many people in the deep South who aren't plugged into college sports at some level.

(03-15-2016 12:29 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  When the $3M/school payment gets announced this summer, Todge Rodge is going to look like a fool.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-commish.../15584633/

Wes Durham, play-by-play announcer for the ACC on FOX Sports Net, brought up a specific clause in ESPN's contract that would pay the ACC $45 million on July 1 in a recent interview with a Louisville radio station. However, Durham quickly walked back specific dates and dollar amounts.

"I mistakenly used the word 'reported,' when I should have used the word 'speculated,' when discussing a possible annual fee to the ACC from ESPN," said Durham. "The numbers and timeline had not been reported, but had been discussed in other circles. I shouldn't have assigned a monetary figure or deadline to my comments."



Is the ACC more confident in ESPN increasing rights fees or launching a dedicated channel in 2016?

"I'm confident that our television [partnership] will turn out to be very successful and beneficial to the league. All I can tell you is those conversations are continuing, and until we reach a point where we're definitive in our path forward, there's really not going to be a whole lot to say about it. Our confidence in the future has not changed."

Does a deadline exist with ESPN related to a a rights-fee increase?

"We always have dates that we point to in our discussions, but at the same time we're partners through at least 2026-27. In any partnership, you can come together and alter that in any way the two parties so choose."

sounds extremely definitive to me