(03-20-2023 08:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Most of the on-air talent is worthless and interchangeable.

That goes double for the people who spend their days endlessly debating minutia, scraping the bottom of the philosophical barrel when it comes to what should be considered important commentary of the day, and not least importantly...the ones who pretend to be outraged over some of the dumbest drama.

Most of the ESPN talk shows should be taken as seriously as the Real Housewives of...take your pick.

Anyway, I remember JR throwing out an idea a while back. Networks should be cooperating with local broadcast teams and cutting costs. Announcers, color commentators, reporters...all of those things can be found employed by local colleges and local pro sports teams. There's really no reason for ESPN or any other network to have a dedicated in-house team for everything under the sun.

I'm not advocating for anyone to lose their job, but just being realistic about the marketability of certain roles within sports media. Cable revenue is declining, streaming is losing money for the time being, and sports rights are still going up. Inflation and supply chain issues are still hurting the overall economy. Something has to give somewhere.

Gonna be interesting to see how things go in the future. Things could be really interesting in the next few years for TV and sports rights.

(03-20-2023 08:40 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:28 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:17 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

Makes $18M and $15M per year respectively.

I've never understood the gigantic broadcaster deals. I'm watching the teams I care about no matter who is calling the game. Seems like the definition of easily replaceable. $15M a year for Troy Aikman? Come on.

Exactly right. Now, I do like Doris Burke for NBA games but she doesn't make that level of coin. BTW, Aikman makes the higher of the two [$18M] but Buck at least handles other sporting events year-round. Aikman is getting the preferential Dallas Cowboys treatment LOL. I say cut these overpaid announcers salaries.

Exactly!!!

(03-20-2023 05:39 PM)Poster Wrote:  ... If the advertisers were going to continue throwing ridiculous dollars at ESPN, then ESPN wouldn't be laying off people.

The advertising money can keep growing, but it's only half the story ... the other half is the payment for providing ESPN to cable households whether they watch ESPN or not, and that cash flow is declining. That's the money that streaming cannot replace because it's only the people who think they want to watch the streaming programming who will pay the subscription fee for the streaming.

One of the reactions from cable providers is more user-selected packages, like the one I was offered two weeks ago of 15 channels plus broadcast channels over cable for $30/month. ESPN and ESPN2 were among the channels available to be picked.

Anyone suggesting that announcers aren't important to games are forgetting how awful the MNF both was over the last decade.

(03-21-2023 12:49 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  Anyone suggesting that announcers aren't important to games are forgetting how awful the MNF both was over the last decade.

Not saying the announcers are not important. But I just don't think that Troy Aikman is worth $15 million a year, in today's economy. In the past, maybe, but now, we are all tightening our belts, and I believe that Troy Aikman's salary should reflect that, unless he wants to do more around ESPN than what he currently does.

(03-21-2023 12:49 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  Anyone suggesting that announcers aren't important to games are forgetting how awful the MNF both was over the last decade.

didn't hurt MNF ratings though

(03-20-2023 05:25 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 04:32 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I could see ESPN could drop the ACC and SEC Networks as they are very expensive. They promised too much money to give to these two conferences.

ESPN splits SEC and ACC network profits with the conferences.

ESPN didn't 'promise too much money to give.' If ESPN loses money, so do the schools. If ESPN makes money, so do the schools.

As it is, both SEC and ACC conference networks are profitable. ESPN and the partner schools have every incentive to make sure these projects remain profitable—hence, divisionless formats, discussion of 9-game schedules, etc.

SEC and ACC networks are not structured like the old LHN, if that's what you're thinking.

Yes.

Heck, if anything, IMO the SECN is likely "too profitable" to ESPN. IIRC, at the time the SECN deal was being brokered, the SEC was already signed to ESPN via their 2008 deal, which IMO inherently gave ESPN leverage in terms of negotiating the terms of an SECN, including the split of profits. Had the SEC been a "free agent" at that time, they would IMO likely be making more money off the SECN right now and ESPN less.

(03-20-2023 05:31 PM)Poster Wrote:  I wonder if sports bidding rights hit their all time peak last year and will literally never reach the same level again.

This could have meant that the Power 2 formed pretty much at the end of the period where they could have formed. The ratio of, say, Big 10 money to PAC money has remained basically constant this entire millenium (contrary to what some people on here seem to think)- it's just that when the value of both conferences increased something like five-fold, that meant the difference in the conference incomes increased five-fold. But if sports rights a decade from now are only a third of what they are now, it's doubtful that USC would have had any interest in joining the BIG a decade from now.

I tend to agree. Changing demographics sure don’t help. After this period we’ll be back to the 1950’s: every (big) man for himself!

(03-21-2023 12:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:39 PM)Poster Wrote:  ... If the advertisers were going to continue throwing ridiculous dollars at ESPN, then ESPN wouldn't be laying off people.

The advertising money can keep growing, but it's only half the story ... the other half is the payment for providing ESPN to cable households whether they watch ESPN or not, and that cash flow is declining. That's the money that streaming cannot replace because it's only the people who think they want to watch the streaming programming who will pay the subscription fee for the streaming.

One of the reactions from cable providers is more user-selected packages, like the one I was offered two weeks ago of 15 channels plus broadcast channels over cable for $30/month. ESPN and ESPN2 were among the channels available to be picked.

I agree about "replacement income" problem. We saw the same thing with movies 10 years ago. A decade ago, a big hit movie like say "Frozen" or "Transformers" would generate another $250 million or more in home video DVD and Blu-Ray disc sales or rentals for Disney or Universal, etc. That is basically gone now, and the money made from streaming these movies hasn't IIRC come close to making up for that.

That said, I think cable providers have responded pretty well to the streaming situation in some ways. In addition to offering the kinds of tailored packages you mention, It is now easy to stream a lot of cable content. E.g., my cable company has its own app now, and you can stream all the channels on tablets, phones etc. while in your home, and many of them when you are on the road. Also, many cable channels now have their own apps where you can stream from anywhere if you are subscribed to the channel via your cable service.

That's a big reason why I haven't cut the cord, but rather have added streaming services to my existing cable service.

(03-20-2023 05:25 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 04:32 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I could see ESPN could drop the ACC and SEC Networks as they are very expensive. They promised too much money to give to these two conferences.

ESPN splits SEC and ACC network profits with the conferences.

ESPN didn't 'promise too much money to give.' If ESPN loses money, so do the schools. If ESPN makes money, so do the schools.

As it is, both SEC and ACC conference networks are profitable. ESPN and the partner schools have every incentive to make sure these projects remain profitable—hence, divisionless formats, discussion of 9-game schedules, etc.

SEC and ACC networks are not structured like the old LHN, if that's what you're thinking.

Correct. SECN and ACCN have been huge bright spots for ESPN as all cable networks have been losing subscribers due to cord cutting. The only major offsets to the losses due to cord cutting suffered by ESPN have been increased subscriber fees for all of the ESPN networks and the addition of new streams of subscription revenues from SECN and ACCN.

In general, sports programming will continue to have significant value due to its ability to deliver the 18-34 and 18-49 male demographics. Soccer, basketball and football are three sports that deliver this audience most effectively. MMA does well also. (Soccer is the strongest demographically of the team sports (i.e., the highest percentage of its audience is in these demos) but has the smallest total audience, with the English Premier League being the strongest soccer property generally.) College basketball and football are not as strong as the NBA and NFL, but are still quite strong, which bodes well for college sports content.

The most significant problem for ESPN is that the cable model is so profitable. The cable model allows ESPN to leverage itself into every multichannel service home in the country, whether the household watches sports or not, and charge $10+ per month to be there. This produces a massive revenue stream that will be very difficult to replace on an a la carte basis.

Streaming is an a la carte service and is not an effective replacement for cable because it requires viewers to choose to pay for the service. Those who are not sports fans will not. To make up the lost revenue, the default scenario would seem likely to be to raise the subscription fee substantially, potentially to $30/month or more.

To replicate the cable model in streaming, you would have to have a service in a similar amount of homes as cable and to then charge for the ESPN family of networks at the same prices that are currently charged by cable. Currently there are 72 million cable households in the US. By comparison, Netflix currently has 74 million subscribers in the US and Canada combined, Hulu has 48 million, and Prime is subscribed to by 77 million households in the US. These all compare favorably to cable. In my view, Disney's best chance to preserve/replace its existing cable revenue stream is to increase the number of subscribers to the Disney Bundle (Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+) to 72 million while simultaneously increasing the price of the bundle to $20-25/month to cover the additional cost of sports programming. The advantage of this model is that Disney would collect the cost of sports programming over a wider group of subscribers at it has previously done successfully under the cable model.

There seems to be some consideration by Disney of the possibility of selling Hulu to Comcast rather than buying out Comcast's share. This would help Disney substantially by deleveraging its balance sheet. However, unless ESPN is part of a general programming service bundle, I believe its likely high a la carte price will scare away casual sports fans.

Another alterative would be for Disney to spin off a combination of ESPN, ABC, Hulu, FX and 20th Century Studios with all of the debt associated with the Fox acquisition. This would create a company built around Hulu and ESPN capable of pursuing the strategy that I described above and allow Disney to focus on its core business of family focused and blockbuster movies, theme parks and Disney+. Disney would be a much smaller but highly focused company with significant synergies generated between its core movie franchises, theme parks and streaming service.

(03-20-2023 05:25 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 04:32 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I could see ESPN could drop the ACC and SEC Networks as they are very expensive. They promised too much money to give to these two conferences.

ESPN splits SEC and ACC network profits with the conferences.

ESPN didn't 'promise too much money to give.' If ESPN loses money, so do the schools. If ESPN makes money, so do the schools.

As it is, both SEC and ACC conference networks are profitable. ESPN and the partner schools have every incentive to make sure these projects remain profitable—hence, divisionless formats, discussion of 9-game schedules, etc.

SEC and ACC networks are not structured like the old LHN, if that's what you're thinking.

Those networks were the caused of cord cutting. That is why the PAC 12 and Longhorn Networks failed. It will be the death of the Big 10, ACC and SEC networks as well. That is what I am talking about. They were forced on cable consummers who did not want them n he first place.

ESPN Classic was cheaper to produce than the ACC Network.

I could see that ESPN could drop the sports rights to several pro-leagues that don't make them money like WNBA, tennis, golf, NBA and hockey. They may keep MNF.
I do think to save ESPN money? They could roll the ACC/SEC/AAC/Big 12/MAC/CUSA/PAC 12and offer them to be shown on ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U and SEC network. Roll the ACC and SEC into one network. Offer a MWC on their new contract negotiation if they would be part of the combined effort.

(03-21-2023 09:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:25 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 04:32 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I could see ESPN could drop the ACC and SEC Networks as they are very expensive. They promised too much money to give to these two conferences.

ESPN splits SEC and ACC network profits with the conferences.

ESPN didn't 'promise too much money to give.' If ESPN loses money, so do the schools. If ESPN makes money, so do the schools.

As it is, both SEC and ACC conference networks are profitable. ESPN and the partner schools have every incentive to make sure these projects remain profitable—hence, divisionless formats, discussion of 9-game schedules, etc.

SEC and ACC networks are not structured like the old LHN, if that's what you're thinking.

Those networks were the caused of cord cutting.

No they were not. SEC and ACC Network at maybe a dollar a month each were a much smaller factor than ESPN The Mothership at $7-8-9 a month and your local RSN at $3-4-5 a month. Especially if you're in a market with overlapping RSNs

Quote:That is why the PAC 12 and Longhorn Networks failed.

No it is not. The PAC 12 NEtwork failed because of soft demand for PAC-12 athletics in the PAC's home territories. The PAC did not partner with a major media company with the leverage to get the PAC 12 Network carried on DirecTV.

Quote:It will be the death of the Big 10, ACC and SEC networks as well.

Cord cutting will see the SEC and Big Ten networks dwindle, this is true. The whole cable bundle is dwindling, including the OTA channels to some extent.

Quote: That is what I am talking about.

You have no clue what you're talking about. You're confusing things that are not similar, and don't take into account both costs AND revenues.

The SEC and ACC networks bring in money to ESPN, a lot of money. Enough money and more to cover the SEC and ACC Network contracts.

(03-21-2023 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN Classic was cheaper to produce than the ACC Network.

that's true, ESPN Classic cost roughly $0 because the programming was already sitting on the shelf gathering dust. But ESPN Classic also never brought in the kind of revenu that hte ACC NEtwork does.

Quote:I could see that ESPN could drop the sports rights to several pro-leagues that don't make them money like WNBA, tennis, golf, NBA and hockey.

Well, they just signed the NHL to a deal. And all of the rumors in the press are that ESPN is planning to put up big money when the NBA rights come up. The rest, they probably won't go all-out to win an auction if someone else is offering big increases--ESPN has started to be more cost conscious.

Quote:They may keep MNF.

...........................
They're going to keep their most valuable piece of programming, I think that's a pretty safe bet.

Quote:I do think to save ESPN money? They could roll the ACC/SEC/AAC/Big 12/MAC/CUSA/PAC 12and offer them to be shown on ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U and SEC network.

What? Most of those leagues are already shown on those networks, you lunatic.

Quote:Roll the ACC and SEC into one network.

Why would you cut the subscription revenues you get for the ACC and SEC NEtworks in half, by having one network instead of 2? Where do you show those games if you only have one network? Dump them on ESPN+?

This makes no sense.

(03-21-2023 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN Classic was cheaper to produce than the ACC Network.

I could see that ESPN could drop the sports rights to several pro-leagues that don't make them money like WNBA, tennis, golf, NBA and hockey. They may keep MNF.
I do think to save ESPN money? They could roll the ACC/SEC/AAC/Big 12/MAC/CUSA/PAC 12and offer them to be shown on ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U and SEC network. Roll the ACC and SEC into one network. Offer a MWC on their new contract negotiation if they would be part of the combined effort.

1. The ACC Network is seemingly the most profitable network for the TV partner, probably even moreso than the Big 10 Network because the schools are getting such a ridiculously low % of profits from the ACCN. This is all part of why ESPN would not want the ACC GOR to be broken-ripping off the ACC schools is good for ESPN, and increasing FSU's value by 15 million or whatever in the SEC is less beneficial to ESPN than ripping off FSU in the ACC.

2. I'm pretty sure ESPN is required to keep the ACC Network alive until July 1, 2036, even if it becomes unprofitable before then.

(03-20-2023 08:40 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:28 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:17 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

Makes $18M and $15M per year respectively.

I've never understood the gigantic broadcaster deals. I'm watching the teams I care about no matter who is calling the game. Seems like the definition of easily replaceable. $15M a year for Troy Aikman? Come on.

Exactly right. Now, I do like Doris Burke for NBA games but she doesn't make that level of coin. BTW, Aikman makes the higher of the two [$18M] but Buck at least handles other sporting events year-round. Aikman is getting the preferential Dallas Cowboys treatment LOL. I say cut these overpaid announcers salaries.

1000%

No one is going to quit watching MNF or NFL on FOX because an announcer leaves.

(03-21-2023 10:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:40 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:28 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:17 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

Makes $18M and $15M per year respectively.

I've never understood the gigantic broadcaster deals. I'm watching the teams I care about no matter who is calling the game. Seems like the definition of easily replaceable. $15M a year for Troy Aikman? Come on.

Exactly right. Now, I do like Doris Burke for NBA games but she doesn't make that level of coin. BTW, Aikman makes the higher of the two [$18M] but Buck at least handles other sporting events year-round. Aikman is getting the preferential Dallas Cowboys treatment LOL. I say cut these overpaid announcers salaries.

1000%

No one is going to quit watching MNF or NFL on FOX because an announcer leaves.

And by the same token, no one is going to watch a MNF game because they just gotta hear Buck and Aikman breakdown the riveting Tennessee vs Indianapolis matchup. My friend group seems to have a major affinity for the Manning Bros telecast, but I usually end up muting most NFL games while watching the game.

Dont get me wrong people with complain if the announcing sucks, but they aren't going to stop watching because of it.

Just gives them something else to complain about.

(03-21-2023 10:05 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN Classic was cheaper to produce than the ACC Network.

I could see that ESPN could drop the sports rights to several pro-leagues that don't make them money like WNBA, tennis, golf, NBA and hockey. They may keep MNF.
I do think to save ESPN money? They could roll the ACC/SEC/AAC/Big 12/MAC/CUSA/PAC 12and offer them to be shown on ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U and SEC network. Roll the ACC and SEC into one network. Offer a MWC on their new contract negotiation if they would be part of the combined effort.

1. The ACC Network is seemingly the most profitable network for the TV partner, probably even moreso than the Big 10 Network because the schools are getting such a ridiculously low % of profits from the ACCN.

Where are you getting this information? I'm not aware of any public information, or well-sourced journalism, about how the ACC ESPN contract and the ACC Network contract work, revenue-wise. We have the FSU AD's presentation saying that the ACC makes $17M per school, but that seems to not include the ACC Network revenue at all. We don't have the Form 990 yet for a full year of ACC tv revenue with the ACC Network at full distribution.

Quote:This is all part of why ESPN would not want the ACC GOR to be broken-ripping off the ACC schools is good for ESPN, and increasing FSU's value by 10 million or whatever in the SEC is less beneficial to ESPN than ripping off FSU in the ACC.

That's pretty much true. In the ACC, Florida State and Clemson are almost automatically playoff contenders, plausible to slot in an ABC or a prime ESPN timeslot. In the SEC, they're just another pair of middle-of-the-pack teams, like a Tennessee until last year or an Arkansas or a South Carolina or an Auburn or a Missouri.

Quote:2. I'm pretty sure ESPN is required to keep the ACC Network alive until July 1, 2036, even if it becomes unprofitable before then.

That's true. Although if the network stopped being profitable, then the ACC might be willing to re-write the contract with ESPN.

(03-20-2023 05:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Maybe they will dump some of their more controversial “talent” and stick to reporting on sports rather than inundating viewers with political editorials.

There may be more games called from Charlotte and where the talent is not live.