Not looking good for any conference hoping to get a lot of money from ESPN next TV contract. AAC is going to be in for a rude awakening just like we were.

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-l...ory-102916

Yep, they will still get more than us (understandably), but it won't be near P5 levels. I still think we should be proactive and say screw the Cable players and go to Youtube/Netlfix. We aren't getting paid squat anyway and even giving away the rights in the short term to either of those two would be worth it in exposure value.

Nielsen had to retract that data and are re-crunching.

https://variety.com/2016/biz/news/nielse...201904983/

In 5-10 years ESPN will become a dinosaur just like "Wide World Of Sports" did in the late 80s to mid 90s, eventually ending in 1998. With the rise of Hulu, Nextflix, Roku, Apple TV and others. I think it will eventually in the near future force cable companies to go ala carte. You will get to pick 25-50-75-100 stations to have depending on the price you want to pay.

And not all will take ESPN. If I had to guess 1/3 of those who get ESPN rarely watch it. Hell I'm one of them. In the past 8 years during College Game Day Ive watched a total of 10 mins. That was in 2014 when they had a piece on Rakeem Cato.

You've got plenty of options to already pick and choose your channels. SlingTV is just one of the ones I think of off the top of my head. It won't take ten years for cable companies to move to a la carte options. If they wait that long, they're dead.

When you start picking what channels you want....

consumers are not going to like what they cried about wanting. In the end you will be paying close to what you are today only for a lot less choices. Already seeing it and prices never go down, only increase.

Right now by the time someone pays for Hulu, Nextflix, Roku, or Apple TV or some other for a sports package....

you are already paying close to what a middle range Directv package. You might only watch 20 to 30% of the channels often. But it's good to have them when you do want to watch something on a channel you never watch.

Right now a person is probably paying $50 a month for Hulu, or Nextflix, and Roku TV. Not to mention that most "cord cutters" end up going up at least one level on their internet service. With TW that adds another $20 a month. So now you are paying right at the same I'm paying for the 250 channels I hardly watch. But at least I can get to one with in a second and no waiting on buffering

(10-31-2016 11:17 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  You've got plenty of options to already pick and choose your channels. SlingTV is just one of the ones I think of off the top of my head. It won't take ten years for cable companies to move to a la carte options. If they wait that long, they're dead.

It won't take 10 years for cable companies to go to ala carte. It will probably take 7-10 years for ESPN to become the dinosaur that "Wide World Of Sports" eventually. WWS should have ended in the early 90s, but it hung around 6-8 years more than it should have. In its last 2 years I read once where they had somewhere between 15-25K viewers a week, as where in the mid 70s to mid 80s they drew somewhere between 100-125K per week, in a lot less populated US.

I'm always happy when ESPN suffers. They have ruined college football in my opinion. They love the P5 conferences. To me that wouldn't exist if it weren't for ESPN.

(11-01-2016 02:09 AM)SethManKA1 Wrote:  I'm always happy when ESPN suffers. They have ruined college football in my opinion. They love the P5 conferences. To me that wouldn't exist if it weren't for ESPN.

On the other hand, a lot of us would have never been seen by anyone other than local fans if it wasn't for what ESPN did initially to the sports landscape. When we first rejoined the MAC, ESPN loved Marshall and we got a lot of air time. And we got promoted due to talents like Randy Moss, Doug Chapman, Chad Pennington, etc, on the national scene. I don't like what they've become as a corporate monster pulling the strings and molding things the way they want it, but I'll always have a little appreciation for the company that put a little school from WV on the map.

espn also destroyed college basketball and did their part in the money grab we are seeing today. Look at the top 25 and the ncaa tourney pre late 80s and you will see a lot of schools not in a p5 conference getting bids and in the polls. What you wont see is the bottom of the p5 in either or the middle of those conference. Well there were some schools in the middle to have a good year then drop back. But today the worse p5 is considered to be better than most top schools playing in a g5 conference.


When you have suck a large investment in something you protect it at all cost...espn made schools like Neb. who did nothing in college basketball more respected and well known than schools with a rich basketball history playing in the SBC

This pleases me

It's not just ESPN, its all of cable. More and more people are realizing that it's just not worth it with all the other options for way less money. It's only going to get worse as the number of people who cut the cord continues to grow every day. Some networks see the writing on the wall, like CBS and HBO, both now offer a streaming service. These companies need to adapt or become dinosaurs. You really don't need internet more the 10 mbps to stream multiple devices. OTA can pick 2 dozen channels many in HD and will cost a one time purchase of $10 to $30 off Amazon. Mine even picks up ASN. Add $8 for Netflix (or share like everyone) and shop around for 10 mbps internet you can have a bill as low as $30 including Netflix/Hulu/Amazon or whomever you pick. Also, buy your own router to save another $5 month on your internet bill.

Two bills your parents (for those of us 40 and older) never had; cable and cell. I have both cable, netflix so that's about $190 per month, plus cell (5 lines w/data) $330. These two bills piss me off, yet, I pay them.

(10-31-2016 11:18 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  When you start picking what channels you want....

consumers are not going to like what they cried about wanting. In the end you will be paying close to what you are today only for a lot less choices. Already seeing it and prices never go down, only increase.

Right now by the time someone pays for Hulu, Nextflix, Roku, or Apple TV or some other for a sports package....

you are already paying close to what a middle range Directv package. You might only watch 20 to 30% of the channels often. But it's good to have them when you do want to watch something on a channel you never watch.

Right now a person is probably paying $50 a month for Hulu, or Nextflix, and Roku TV. Not to mention that most "cord cutters" end up going up at least one level on their internet service. With TW that adds another $20 a month. So now you are paying right at the same I'm paying for the 250 channels I hardly watch. But at least I can get to one with in a second and no waiting on buffering

+1

And not many see it that way even though they will take pleasure in this momentary news. However, the real concern is these smaller platforms being bought by the major networks...eventually.

Disney is already in talks to buy Netflix.

But I like to look at the lost of subscription as a vehicle to drive a change in narrative for college football to an all-inclusive playoff. This is something that the smaller budget schools need to capitalize on.

(11-01-2016 02:30 AM)MUther Wrote:  On the other hand, a lot of us would have never been seen by anyone other than local fans if it wasn't for what ESPN did initially to the sports landscape. When we first rejoined the MAC, ESPN loved Marshall and we got a lot of air time. And we got promoted due to talents like Randy Moss, Doug Chapman, Chad Pennington, etc, on the national scene. I don't like what they've become as a corporate monster pulling the strings and molding things the way they want it, but I'll always have a little appreciation for the company that put a little school from WV on the map.

If it wasn't for Dan Shoemaker working for ESPN none of that would have happened for Marshall. We were just lucky enough to have a Marshall grad doing ESPN scheduling. So it wasn't ESPN, it was the man behind the curtain.

(11-01-2016 08:27 AM)DNEagle Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 11:18 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  When you start picking what channels you want....

consumers are not going to like what they cried about wanting. In the end you will be paying close to what you are today only for a lot less choices. Already seeing it and prices never go down, only increase.

Right now by the time someone pays for Hulu, Nextflix, Roku, or Apple TV or some other for a sports package....

you are already paying close to what a middle range Directv package. You might only watch 20 to 30% of the channels often. But it's good to have them when you do want to watch something on a channel you never watch.

Right now a person is probably paying $50 a month for Hulu, or Nextflix, and Roku TV. Not to mention that most "cord cutters" end up going up at least one level on their internet service. With TW that adds another $20 a month. So now you are paying right at the same I'm paying for the 250 channels I hardly watch. But at least I can get to one with in a second and no waiting on buffering

+1

And not many see it that way even though they will take pleasure in this momentary news. However, the real concern is these smaller platforms being bought by the major networks...eventually.

Disney is already in talks to buy Netflix.

But I like to look at the lost of subscription as a vehicle to drive a change in narrative for college football to an all-inclusive playoff. This is something that the smaller budget schools need to capitalize on.

I think the part you're missing is transparency in the pricing.

That's one part of cable TV that is woefully lacking, and it's almost downright deceptive.

People are tired of teaser rates for 2 years, then a 50% markup with no agreement. I personally refuse to play the game, and I have much better success with streaming everything. Yes, I do pay more than I used to for cable internet, but even with all those services, my bill is still lower than it was with cable and a sports package.

(11-01-2016 06:47 AM)blueraidermike Wrote:  Two bills your parents (for those of us 40 and older) never had; cable and cell. I have both cable, netflix so that's about $190 per month, plus cell (5 lines w/data) $330. These two bills piss me off, yet, I pay them.

You paying $520 a month or $330 for both?

My DirectV and Internet (Turbo TW) is $130 and we have 4 cells with unlimited data (att) for I believe $170. My wife pays that one so I'm not certain on it..could have went down (yeah right)

I pay $66 a month to Comcast for 90mbps down + 50ish channels (mostly locals and HBO). I provide my own DVR (HDHOMERUN Prime + WMC on an old laptop) so no extra fees. My phone is paid for by my work, my wife is on a 10+ person family plan with other family members for around $16 per. I get most everything I want through local channels (WKYU being available helps a ton in that regard, even though I am more than an hour West of BG). On the rare occasion that I do want to watch something on ESPN, I have login info from work that I can "borrow". If ESPN offered a $5- $10 streaming package I would consider paying for it during football/basketball seasons. I also have the Netflix family plan (4 concurrent streams) that I split with 4 family members.

(11-01-2016 10:42 AM)freshtop Wrote:  I pay $66 a month to Comcast for 90mbps down + 50ish channels (mostly locals and HBO). I provide my own DVR (HDHOMERUN Prime + WMC on an old laptop) so no extra fees. My phone is paid for by my work, my wife is on a 10+ person family plan with other family members for around $16 per. I get most everything I want through local channels (WKYU being available helps a ton in that regard, even though I am more than an hour West of BG). On the rare occasion that I do want to watch something on ESPN, I have login info from work that I can "borrow". If ESPN offered a $5- $10 streaming package I would consider paying for it during football/basketball seasons. I also have the Netflix family plan (4 concurrent streams) that I split with 4 family members.

You are getting by cheap....

I don't have 4 family member I can split with...I have 4 but I would end up paying for the other 3 :)

Let me ask you a question...could you pick up the Western station before digital? Owensboro is a hour north of BG and when it was over the air and before I got reinvested with the program in 2000 and making the drive....

I could get a very snowy picture in on some nights. But most games I had to climb on the roof turn it a few different ways just to get that.

So a HD antenna gets picks up 60-70 miles? With DirectV i get to record most games but some like the ODU game I don't.

I have 7 siblings so finding a willing party to split costs is pretty easy, lol.

I could not get WKYU in the analog days. After the transition, I up an antenna and was able to get it. Now Comcast has WKYU-HD included with their local channels so the antenna is a backup plan. WKYU (or WKU PBS or whatever they are called now) does a great job of showing the ASN games as well as the Fox College Sports (and in the past, ESPN3) games. They would be on the top of my list if I had to rank my sports channels.