https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

Everything is trending downward and I think it is mostly due to technology advances and how it impacts how we consume media and entertainment in general. The millennials are a by product of this. They consume everything is short clips. Attention spans are way down.

NFL ratings are down. https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

NCAA attendance is down from a peak in 2008.

Overall College enrollment is down from a peak in 2011.

I think previous generations are still consuming as they have in the past but the new generation is not on board.

We all know the ESPN NBA contract is insane and will not support itself.

I doubt the entire system will collapse as many predict but it is going to change.

(05-30-2017 09:21 AM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

Everything is trending downward and I think it is mostly due to technology advances and how it impacts how we consume media and entertainment in general. The millennials are a by product of this. They consume everything is short clips. Attention spans are way down.

This is true. I think interest in sports overall is actually as high as ever, but consuming clips and checking scores on an app is what constitutes "fan engagement" today as opposed to watching a full game on TV or in person.

Quote:NFL ratings are down. https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

This seems to be more of a momentary blip due to increased competition from... other sports. Note that the MLB Postseason and World Series with the Cubs in 2017 drew monster ratings that provided a lot stronger competition against fall NFL games than what we normally see. When the end of the season came about, the ratings were back up to normal NFL standards.

Also, people need to put ratings declines into context. In terms of relative power against every single other form of programming on TV (whether sports or non-sports), the NFL is at an all-time high. Even to the extent that NFL ratings and other sports ratings have dropped, every non-sports program on TV have dropped MUCH further in viewership. The relative value of sports compared to all other programs on TV is actually rising.

Quote:NCAA attendance is down from a peak in 2008.

Overall College enrollment is down from a peak in 2011.

This is true, although much of the decrease in overall college enrollment is at lower ranked schools. When you look at the top 100 or so schools in the US News rankings, which have a lot of top state flagships and private universities (AKA much of the P5 membership), they're generally seeing record levels of applications and enrollment. So, we're seeing a bifurcation in the strength of universities into a top level and a lower level with little in between (much like pretty much everything in society).

Quote:I think previous generations are still consuming as they have in the past but the new generation is not on board.

We all know the ESPN NBA contract is insane and will not support itself.

I doubt the entire system will collapse as many predict but it is going to change.

We see a lot of "the ESPN NSA contract is insane" comments lately, but that isn't actually borne out by the numbers. Look at the data from this postseason:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2017/05/...ince-2013/

Here's the important quote:

"Game 4 had a 2.8 rating in adults 18-49, up 12% from last year’s East Finals (2.5) but down 22% from last year’s WCF on TNT (3.6). It was the night’s top television program in the demo, comfortably topping the season finale of NBC’s The Voice (1.9). The NBA has at least tied the day’s top rating in the demo 24 times in 37 days this postseason."

If you were running a network and had a single property that could produce the top 18-49 rating (which is the rating that advertisers pay the most for) out of all of the networks in 24 out of 37 days (and note that this is when most of those games are on cable as opposed to over-the-air), you would pay a TON of money for that property because it would be the most valuable program that you'd have in your stable. The NBA delivers a *fantastic* demo of younger viewers that watch programs live, which is why it is receiving a premium. In terms of TV value due to such viewers, the NBA is clearly the most valuable sports property in America after the NFL and it's simply getting paid accordingly.

Look at how the NBA beat The Voice finale (which is one of the most stable properties on TV and one of the few non-sports programs that a large number of people watch live) head-to-head in the age 18-49 demo. As I noted earlier, even if sports might be getting lower ratings in an absolute sense, they are actually gaining more value in a relative sense because all other programs on TV are losing viewers at a MUCH faster rate. Sports have an inherent advantage on all other types of programming because they're (a) live (meaning people watch the commercials and (b) exclusive (meaning that an ESPN game needs to be watched on an ESPN platform, whereas most other programs can be accessed on a variety o platforms).

This is why I try to never miss a Frank the Tank post. Thanks again.

Awful reporting. Espn thinks its bigger than the game. Oversaturation of bad football labeled "p5" to make us think its actually good. Disconnect from students and athletes. Kids getting tired of watching fellow "students" get pampered while they incur massive amounts of debt. Politicization of sports.

Espn is killing the golden goose and universities are too. It will get worse before it gets better.

(05-30-2017 09:21 AM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

Everything is trending downward and I think it is mostly due to technology advances and how it impacts how we consume media and entertainment in general. The millennials are a by product of this. They consume everything is short clips. Attention spans are way down.

NFL ratings are down. https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

NCAA attendance is down from a peak in 2008.

Overall College enrollment is down from a peak in 2011.

I think previous generations are still consuming as they have in the past but the new generation is not on board.

We all know the ESPN NBA contract is insane and will not support itself.

I doubt the entire system will collapse as many predict but it is going to change.

In regards to Div I College Football, the averages are down over past 10 years or so mostly because of all the former Div I-AA programs that have moved up to I-A in recent years, almost ALL draw below (some well below) nstionsl averages.

Yes, some P5 programs have seen attend numbers drop but more are taking the approach of adding premium seating while eliminating old regular bleachers seating (even cutting capacity) but helps generate a lot more $$$.

(05-30-2017 09:40 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Awful reporting. Espn thinks its bigger than the game. Oversaturation of bad football labeled "p5" to make us think its actually good. Disconnect from students and athletes. Kids getting tired of watching fellow "students" get pampered while they incur massive amounts of debt. Politicization of sports.

Espn is killing the golden goose and universities are too. It will get worse before it gets better.

Amen. This

(05-28-2017 11:57 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 10:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem with his anaylisis is it fails to consider that sports remains---by a wide margin---the most popular programming on television. So what we are seeing is an unwillingness of a large group of consumers to pay an unreasonably high price for cable networks they don't watch. What we are NOT seeing is a drop in the actual demand for sports. As long as demand for sports remains high---those rights will not suddenly lose all or most of thier value as this piece predicts.

What I maintain is you are simply seeing a period of technologically driven disruption where both the delivery method and the way in which you are billed for television is entering a period of change. The truth of the matter is that with smart phones, tablets, and streaming devices---now adding to normal tv consumption---the appetite and demand for content has actually increased. When demand increases typically value goes up---not down.

What we are seeing is probably the end of the cable bundle as we know it. Yes, with the cable bundle--non-sports watchers were subsidizing ESPN. But it's also true that sports watchers were subsidizing the Oxygen and Hallmaerk networks---which are primarily women's interest channel---that sports viewers probably don't watch much of.

The answer for cable is skinny bundles or al a carte cable. Small limited bundles that are geared to lesswell heeled consumers or towards consumers with specific interests might work. The best idea is a la carte---where each networks has an individual price and a consumer creates his own "bundle" only paying for the networks that he actually wants.

What will happen is ESPN will rise in price to cover costs. In order to pay more for ESPN, sports fans will drop networks THEY DONT WATCH to pay for the now more expensive ESPN. So, by dropping things they are not interested in---both sports watchers and non sports watchers will pay less for more tv. The losers are the cable companies and networks with limited viewership.

You miss the point of the article, if you believe the logic (& I do believe), it's not the sports fans making channel choices but rather the bundling of ESPN with other basic or near-basic packages that is going away with discrete channel or viewing choice options offered by streaming services. The non-viewers of sports (a huge market), 10,000 a day according to the article, who are now deciding NOT to continue to buy the cable/satellite program bundles who will determine the financial future for ESPN. Yes there is still a sports market but its value includes ESPN as a network less & less as more discrete program viewing options become available at a much lower revenue point.

Bingo: the number of non-sports television watchers outnumber sports nuts like us. Consequently, once bundling of television channels falls to the wayside the non-sports watchers are no longer going to be giving their money to ESPN for a product they don't consume.

I think what will happen is that the cost of watching sports will go up as pro leagues and the NCAA tries to make up the difference. The elite college programs will always been in good shape relative to the rest, albeit at lower revenue levels. This is scary for leagues like ours and many "P5" in name only programs that would not likely be able to stand by themselves if not for their power conference blueblood conference mates, i.e. Maryland football in the B1G.


BTW...I thought the article was pretty good, until the author cited ESPN's alleged "sharp turn to the left" as another big reason why they were losing subscriptions.

That is just injecting a political agenda when its not a significant factor. Pro sports and college athletics have always been on the edge of social evolution. Case and point: look at the integration of baseball and the professional sports leagues. That was as a drastic societal change driven by the 'left' of this country. Yet, while the struggles of the civil rights movement was going on, the four major pro sports leagues saw a huge rise in interest and television. For all those people in the 1950 -1960s that swore that integrating black athletes would ruin sports...it actually had an opposite effect. Ditto for college athletics.

Bottom line: ppl are abandoning ESPN and cable...because they can. However, at some point the industry will stablize and dollars will be redistributed in relative fashion based on distribution on new platforms. ESPN doesn't care if you watch their commercials on your phone of 90" UHD monitor in your living room. Plus at this point, I think the ease of use and quality of streaming services is over-rated. It just not there yet...as users of DirectTV now can attest. Great idea...but still a work in progress.

(05-27-2017 10:59 PM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  ESPN and the Bursting of the Sports Bubble[/php]

It's refreshing to see society to begin to put sports back into its' proper perspective, IMO. Paying athletes millions has always been a distorted value in many ways just as it has been somewhat for rock stars, movie stars, etc. The big difference is that the musicians, actors, etc., can trace their worth more directly as their audiences aren't forced to pay for their product, instead seeking them out, whereas ESPN has had a false revenue stream that didn't correlate to their true number of viewers due to bundling. ESPN rights fees to carriers were way higher than most content providers. As a result they have overpaid grossly for content, distorting sports salaries in the process.

(05-31-2017 05:08 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 09:21 AM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

Everything is trending downward and I think it is mostly due to technology advances and how it impacts how we consume media and entertainment in general. The millennials are a by product of this. They consume everything is short clips. Attention spans are way down.

NFL ratings are down. https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

NCAA attendance is down from a peak in 2008.

Overall College enrollment is down from a peak in 2011.

I think previous generations are still consuming as they have in the past but the new generation is not on board.

We all know the ESPN NBA contract is insane and will not support itself.

I doubt the entire system will collapse as many predict but it is going to change.

In regards to Div I College Football, the averages are down over past 10 years or so mostly because of all the former Div I-AA programs that have moved up to I-A in recent years, almost ALL draw below (some well below) nstionsl averages.

Yes, some P5 programs have seen attend numbers drop but more are taking the approach of adding premium seating while eliminating old regular bleachers seating (even cutting capacity) but helps generate a lot more $$$.

and many of these recent moves to D-1a have no business is major athletics. They will have no following in the stands or on the TV. I think it is time for the NCAA to implement so standards.

(05-31-2017 07:26 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 11:57 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 10:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem with his anaylisis is it fails to consider that sports remains---by a wide margin---the most popular programming on television. So what we are seeing is an unwillingness of a large group of consumers to pay an unreasonably high price for cable networks they don't watch. What we are NOT seeing is a drop in the actual demand for sports. As long as demand for sports remains high---those rights will not suddenly lose all or most of thier value as this piece predicts.

What I maintain is you are simply seeing a period of technologically driven disruption where both the delivery method and the way in which you are billed for television is entering a period of change. The truth of the matter is that with smart phones, tablets, and streaming devices---now adding to normal tv consumption---the appetite and demand for content has actually increased. When demand increases typically value goes up---not down.

What we are seeing is probably the end of the cable bundle as we know it. Yes, with the cable bundle--non-sports watchers were subsidizing ESPN. But it's also true that sports watchers were subsidizing the Oxygen and Hallmaerk networks---which are primarily women's interest channel---that sports viewers probably don't watch much of.

The answer for cable is skinny bundles or al a carte cable. Small limited bundles that are geared to lesswell heeled consumers or towards consumers with specific interests might work. The best idea is a la carte---where each networks has an individual price and a consumer creates his own "bundle" only paying for the networks that he actually wants.

What will happen is ESPN will rise in price to cover costs. In order to pay more for ESPN, sports fans will drop networks THEY DONT WATCH to pay for the now more expensive ESPN. So, by dropping things they are not interested in---both sports watchers and non sports watchers will pay less for more tv. The losers are the cable companies and networks with limited viewership.

You miss the point of the article, if you believe the logic (& I do believe), it's not the sports fans making channel choices but rather the bundling of ESPN with other basic or near-basic packages that is going away with discrete channel or viewing choice options offered by streaming services. The non-viewers of sports (a huge market), 10,000 a day according to the article, who are now deciding NOT to continue to buy the cable/satellite program bundles who will determine the financial future for ESPN. Yes there is still a sports market but its value includes ESPN as a network less & less as more discrete program viewing options become available at a much lower revenue point.

Bingo: the number of non-sports television watchers outnumber sports nuts like us. Consequently, once bundling of television channels falls to the wayside the non-sports watchers are no longer going to be giving their money to ESPN for a product they don't consume.

I think what will happen is that the cost of watching sports will go up as pro leagues and the NCAA tries to make up the difference. The elite college programs will always been in good shape relative to the rest, albeit at lower revenue levels. This is scary for leagues like ours and many "P5" in name only programs that would not likely be able to stand by themselves if not for their power conference blueblood conference mates, i.e. Maryland football in the B1G.


BTW...I thought the article was pretty good, until the author cited ESPN's alleged "sharp turn to the left" as another big reason why they were losing subscriptions.

That is just injecting a political agenda when its not a significant factor. Pro sports and college athletics have always been on the edge of social evolution. Case and point: look at the integration of baseball and the professional sports leagues. That was as a drastic societal change driven by the 'left' of this country. Yet, while the struggles of the civil rights movement was going on, the four major pro sports leagues saw a huge rise in interest and television. For all those people in the 1950 -1960s that swore that integrating black athletes would ruin sports...it actually had an opposite effect. Ditto for college athletics.

Bottom line: ppl are abandoning ESPN and cable...because they can. However, at some point the industry will stablize and dollars will be redistributed in relative fashion based on distribution on new platforms. ESPN doesn't care if you watch their commercials on your phone of 90" UHD monitor in your living room. Plus at this point, I think the ease of use and quality of streaming services is over-rated. It just not there yet...as users of DirectTV now can attest. Great idea...but still a work in progress.

Your bottom line is just not a complete picture. The bottom line is ESPN OWNS the rights to those media events that MORE people want to see than anything else. So the consumer can either ante up---or not watch. As you have noted, some will not watch. What you fail to realize is that MANY will simply ante up---because that's what they WANT to watch.

The cost will go up for those that ante up. However, those that ante up, will react by CUTTING the things THEY DONT watch. In the end, the money for total revenue for ESPN will be about the same with fewer subscribers paying more to see the programming and live sports events they WANT to watch.

Right now its messy---because we are in that period of disruption where this is being sorted out. In the end, your going to see it play out like I said because ESPN holds the rights for many of the most popular sporting events for another decade. I have a life sized picture of NFL, SEC, BIG10, NBA, ACC, Big12, Pac12, and G5 fans blowing off their favorite teams so they can stream 20 year old movies and TV shows off of Netflix. It's simply not a realistic portrayal of the consumer.

Look, this has happened before. In the late 70's and early 80's cable was going to "kill over the air broadcast TV". That was almost 40 years ago and OTA TV is still alive and kicking. Things will certainly change and evolve--but ESPN will be fine and sports rights will continue to appreciate in value. The only way sports values decline is if the public is no longer interested in sports. That would be a game changer--but that's not what is happening.

(06-01-2017 09:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 05:08 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 09:21 AM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

Everything is trending downward and I think it is mostly due to technology advances and how it impacts how we consume media and entertainment in general. The millennials are a by product of this. They consume everything is short clips. Attention spans are way down.

NFL ratings are down. https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

NCAA attendance is down from a peak in 2008.

Overall College enrollment is down from a peak in 2011.

I think previous generations are still consuming as they have in the past but the new generation is not on board.

We all know the ESPN NBA contract is insane and will not support itself.

I doubt the entire system will collapse as many predict but it is going to change.

In regards to Div I College Football, the averages are down over past 10 years or so mostly because of all the former Div I-AA programs that have moved up to I-A in recent years, almost ALL draw below (some well below) nstionsl averages.

Yes, some P5 programs have seen attend numbers drop but more are taking the approach of adding premium seating while eliminating old regular bleachers seating (even cutting capacity) but helps generate a lot more $$$.

and many of these recent moves to D-1a have no business is major athletics. They will have no following in the stands or on the TV. I think it is time for the NCAA to implement so standards.

Here's a list of all new Div I-A teams since 2002:

2002: Troy
2006: FAU
2006: FIU
2009: WKU
2012: UTSA
2012: Texas State
2012: South Alabama
2012: UMASS
2013: Georgia State
2015: Old Dominion
2014: Georgia Southern
2014: Appalachian State
2015: Charlotte

Almost ALL have "announced" figures well below the national average...hence one of the main reasons why the overall national average as dropped.

(06-01-2017 12:38 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 05:08 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 09:21 AM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

Everything is trending downward and I think it is mostly due to technology advances and how it impacts how we consume media and entertainment in general. The millennials are a by product of this. They consume everything is short clips. Attention spans are way down.

NFL ratings are down. https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632...tnathanson

NCAA attendance is down from a peak in 2008.

Overall College enrollment is down from a peak in 2011.

I think previous generations are still consuming as they have in the past but the new generation is not on board.

We all know the ESPN NBA contract is insane and will not support itself.

I doubt the entire system will collapse as many predict but it is going to change.

In regards to Div I College Football, the averages are down over past 10 years or so mostly because of all the former Div I-AA programs that have moved up to I-A in recent years, almost ALL draw below (some well below) nstionsl averages.

Yes, some P5 programs have seen attend numbers drop but more are taking the approach of adding premium seating while eliminating old regular bleachers seating (even cutting capacity) but helps generate a lot more $$$.

and many of these recent moves to D-1a have no business is major athletics. They will have no following in the stands or on the TV. I think it is time for the NCAA to implement so standards.

Here's a list of all new Div I-A teams since 2002:

2002: Troy
2006: FAU
2006: FIU
2009: WKU
2012: UTSA
2012: Texas State
2012: South Alabama
2012: UMASS
2013: Georgia State
2015: Old Dominion
2014: Georgia Southern
2014: Appalachian State
2015: Charlotte

Almost ALL have "announced" figures well below the national average...hence one of the main reasons why the overall national average as dropped.

almost everyone on that list is hot garbage for fan support. Only a few like Old Dominion, Appalachian State, and maybe WKU deserve D-1 status.

(05-29-2017 10:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 09:49 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 02:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 09:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lol...You're absolutely correct. There are cheaper alternatives, but no cheaper LEGAL alternative will allow me to follow all the networks that I want. The biggest problems with the cheaper alternatives is none offer CBS-Sports (a major AAC partner) and Root Spprts (where the Astros and Rockets play) along with every network that I want. To be fair, im also carrying some networks I personally don't care about---but members of my family DO care about. The other reason my bill is so high is the number of TV's in my home. The cable carriers now require a special HD box for every television in your home that's linked to cable (it wasn't always that way, you used to be able to hook a cable ready TV directly to the cable and get "basic" cable in secondary rooms---not anymore). There is a significant monthly fee for every HD box and if you have TV's scattered all over the house---it can (and does) add up.

So, yes--I could easily cut the bill, but I like having all my sports networks and I like having HD access in all the rooms with TV. At.this point in my life I m willing to pay for that convenience. I wasn't gripping about my bill---I was just using myself as an example to show that with a la carte cable---many people could end up paying much more for their cable sports, but by dropping networks they don't want, their cable bill could still end up significantly lower than it is now.

The new youtube TV will offer CBS Sports.

No streamer Im aware of is offering the local Root RSN--which is the biggest problem now that a couple of streamers actually have CBS-Sports (I think Sony VUE has CBS-Sports as well). Sony VUE appears to be a heck of a value and its the one I'd go with if I had to jump today. The nice thing about the streaming model is I can buy a Roku for every TV I have (most of mine already have one anyway) and I avoid the per TV "HD cable box charge" that also contributes a significant amount to my cable bill. So, for people with alot of TVs in their home, the streaming bundle models are very attractive options if you find one that covers all the networks you want. The number of "screens" is also an important item to check. I think YouTube only gives you 2 "screens" where I think you get 4 with Sony VUE (meaning 4 people can stream 4 different shows on the account at once vs just 2 at one time).

Rather odd directv now doesn't have root considering they have the same parent company

Direct has Root.

possible good news for you Coug..Root Sports looks to be coming to a streaming service soon, most likely DirecTV now
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=304&sid=44476469