(05-09-2017 07:38 AM)holyterror Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:53 PM)ddramone Wrote:  ESPN's politics made for an easy scapegoat for their declining ratings. However, streaming video, twitter, MLB.com, NBA.com, NFL.com have all come up with their own highlights, throw in Netflix, Tivo, Roku and all the other 'appointment' TV options, and ESPN isn't the only one that is hurting. I cut the cord and get all my highlights I need, when I need them (just like so many others) and I can get free streams of virtually any big time sports event.

How much are you saving per year, approximately? I'm considering sticking with the Firestick and Streaming sports.

I'm saving around $2,100.

if ESPN was smart, they'd start offering a standalone subscription service for streaming devices like AppleTV, Roku, Firestick, etc. HBO and Starz have already done it where you just pay the provider a flat fee and get access. Then cord cutters would opt to pay the $10-15 for ESPN rather than having to pay a cable/satellite provider $100+ per month for a ton of channels they don't even watch. These companies have done it to themselves by forcing people to pay outrageous amounts of money for a ton of useless programming that most couldn't care less about. Bring back Galaxy 5 and the old days of the giant satellite dishes where you would pay by the channel.

(05-04-2017 11:56 AM)Seabee TIger Fan Wrote:  I'm still pissed they didn't get rid of Doris Burke.

(05-09-2017 08:28 AM)WColt45 Wrote:  if ESPN was smart, they'd start offering a standalone subscription service for streaming devices like AppleTV, Roku, Firestick, etc. HBO and Starz have already done it where you just pay the provider a flat fee and get access. Then cord cutters would opt to pay the $10-15 for ESPN rather than having to pay a cable/satellite provider $100+ per month for a ton of channels they don't even watch. These companies have done it to themselves by forcing people to pay outrageous amounts of money for a ton of useless programming that most couldn't care less about. Bring back Galaxy 5 and the old days of the giant satellite dishes where you would pay by the channel.

They are in a tough spot. Right now they are getting $6, which doesn't seem like much, but it is much higher than just about every other channel except movie channels like HBO. The problem is that when they take surveys, fully 60% of those surveyed say that they don't want ESPN.

If they go to a standalone service they are immediately going to lose more than half of their subscriber base.

(05-09-2017 08:37 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:28 AM)WColt45 Wrote:  if ESPN was smart, they'd start offering a standalone subscription service for streaming devices like AppleTV, Roku, Firestick, etc. HBO and Starz have already done it where you just pay the provider a flat fee and get access. Then cord cutters would opt to pay the $10-15 for ESPN rather than having to pay a cable/satellite provider $100+ per month for a ton of channels they don't even watch. These companies have done it to themselves by forcing people to pay outrageous amounts of money for a ton of useless programming that most couldn't care less about. Bring back Galaxy 5 and the old days of the giant satellite dishes where you would pay by the channel.

They are in a tough spot. Right now they are getting $6, which doesn't seem like much, but it is much higher than just about every other channel except movie channels like HBO. The problem is that when they take surveys, fully 60% of those surveyed say that they don't want ESPN.

If they go to a standalone service they are immediately going to lose more than half of their subscriber base.

Yep, ESPN is the most expensive non movie channel in the lineup. Netflix spent 5 billion on content in 2016 compared to 7.3 by ESPN and Netflix has a massive ton more entertainment value than ESPN.

(05-05-2017 10:13 AM)MTiger14 Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 08:35 PM)MonsterTigerBlue Wrote:  Wish the aac would just go digital Youtube , buy the AAC package and get all the games... Im sure they could cut out the middle man and hit the new generation where they watch and make lots of money Via Ad's and yearly subscriptions. Wonder what that would be worth per team... ?? something to think about

I like this idea. I'd rather give my money for AAC season packages to Youtube than the guys riding the jocks of superstars and traditional power programs over at ESPN. I grew tired of their recycled cliche narratives by the time I got to college.

ESPN is pretty much the MTV of sports channels. Sure, "sports" is in the network's name, but 90% of the shows are concerned with pop-culture and big on-screen personalities. Stephen A. Smith is played out. Sportsnation is close. WWE should NEVER be on a real sports network.

Rant. Over.

to add to your rant...I don't want to watch people playing poker games, as if that were a sport.
Poker doesn't belong on ESPN.

(05-05-2017 12:07 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:12 AM)Mimi Wrote:  Actually people have speculated that to be the case, but it has been shown not to be. Somewhat typical whining...although Rights fatigue is the bigger expression.

Probably had some to do with it. I know the Caitlyn Jenner award turned a lot of people off - because it was exploitation, in an area that should be the opposite of exploitation.

My wife was asking why I didn't watch ESPN as much as I used to, and I really couldn't put my finger on it. Probably a bunch of reasons. But I truly don't. I watch games only; I no longer watch any of the talk or highlight shows.

I used to fall asleep during college football season watching highlights of college football games.
As you said..I rarely watch ESPN anymore.
Its truly become ESPiN

(05-09-2017 08:25 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:38 AM)holyterror Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:53 PM)ddramone Wrote:  ESPN's politics made for an easy scapegoat for their declining ratings. However, streaming video, twitter, MLB.com, NBA.com, NFL.com have all come up with their own highlights, throw in Netflix, Tivo, Roku and all the other 'appointment' TV options, and ESPN isn't the only one that is hurting. I cut the cord and get all my highlights I need, when I need them (just like so many others) and I can get free streams of virtually any big time sports event.

How much are you saving per year, approximately? I'm considering sticking with the Firestick and Streaming sports.

I'm saving around $2,100.

yeah, I cancelled my cable tv, just kept my internet.
My streaming from December to May....2.5 terabytes of data. LOL
Good thing my provider doesn't have monthly data caps (yet).

I am in the process of making changes. Xfinity just got to my area and in 2 weeks they will have me in the database. Then I can get the 75mbs internet instead of my crappy 6mbs DSL. At that point I will drop Dish Net and go to a streaming service. I am really leaning towards Playstation Vue, but I won't until they add in A&E (History channels). But at 69 a month including HBO and Showtime on up to 5 devices, it is hard to beat IMO.

Thanks to all of y'all.