We keep talking about market size, saturation, and value to conferences in specific regions due to television appeal. But I feel as though we're being short sighted in our approach.

Looking ahead, the end game for sports programming and all television will go towards a la carte ordering of specific games, shows, and events. From there, it would seem that each particular team would be assigned a ranking, not based on their television market as a whole, but on their value as an entity.

With the advent of streaming technologies, cable is fast becoming a dinosaur in the world of media mediums. Will a college's worth in the athletic landscape soon be judged on their own merits, fanbase, and public appeal as opposed to the market method?

Big money sports television contracts are a bubble. They are overvalued and that bubble may soon pop.

Just a thought.

Does Netflix have the capability to do live programming? If so I wouldn't be surprised to see them dip their toes into sports programming one day. Or perhaps YouTube, they can do live events.

These two might be good options for conferences who's games aren't picked up by their TV partners.

For instance, without non-sports programming subsidizing sports television how much would ESPN cost?:

"According to a recent report from a Needham analyst, $30 a month. Or more than five times what ESPN presently costs. (Other reports have varied on the cost, ranging from $20-$30 a month. Regardless, there's no doubt that ESPN - and all sports networks -- would have to drastically increase their costs to make up for the sudden revenue shortfall from much fewer subscribers."

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ans-072113

ESPN will be pushing for teams that will help them cover the lost television sets that they were in when bundled with other programming.

(07-10-2014 10:19 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  For instance, without non-sports programming subsidizing sports television how much would ESPN cost?:

"According to a recent report from a Needham analyst, $30 a month. Or more than five times what ESPN presently costs. (Other reports have varied on the cost, ranging from $20-$30 a month. Regardless, there's no doubt that ESPN - and all sports networks -- would have to drastically increase their costs to make up for the sudden revenue shortfall from much fewer subscribers."

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ans-072113

ESPN will be pushing for teams that will help them cover the lost television sets that they were in when bundled with other programming.

Reports like that are always so alarmist, and fail to take into consideration that every product or service has a price point that is or will be dictated by how "many people" are willing to pay "how much". ESPN can't just look at "well, we make X now with Y subscribers so if we fell to Z subscribers we'd have to charge W..." because there might not be enough people willing to pay W. They cannot charge more than people are willing to pay or they won't have an audience.

Valuing games and teams are already done that way where it really matters. See the Army-Navy game. See BYU. See Norte Dame. Other than that I suspect the market a team resides within dictates at least it's potential --- since people tend to be drawn to the 'home team.' But if there are any exceptions to that rule I suspect that not only the TV brass, but P5 conference commissioners, are already aware and have taken those teams into consideration.

(07-10-2014 10:51 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 10:19 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  For instance, without non-sports programming subsidizing sports television how much would ESPN cost?:

"According to a recent report from a Needham analyst, $30 a month. Or more than five times what ESPN presently costs. (Other reports have varied on the cost, ranging from $20-$30 a month. Regardless, there's no doubt that ESPN - and all sports networks -- would have to drastically increase their costs to make up for the sudden revenue shortfall from much fewer subscribers."

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ans-072113

ESPN will be pushing for teams that will help them cover the lost television sets that they were in when bundled with other programming.

Reports like that are always so alarmist, and fail to take into consideration that every product or service has a price point that is or will be dictated by how "many people" are willing to pay "how much". ESPN can't just look at "well, we make X now with Y subscribers so if we fell to Z subscribers we'd have to charge W..." because there might not be enough people willing to pay W. They cannot charge more than people are willing to pay or they won't have an audience.

That's not what they are saying. ESPN has certain bills to pay. All those yearly rights costs to confernces and professional leagues have to be paid every year--regardless of the number of subscribers or how much they will pay. Plus there are some costs for on-air talent, studios, and live game production (on air staff and crew). The reality is ESPN would likely lose their azz over the short term. Over the longer term, rights fees would drop to a levels that would be sustainable for ESPN under the new carriage model---or ESPN would simply go away in favor of a new delivery system that's able to throw off more earnings to the leagues and conferences (could be direct digital delivery, conference networks, or something we have not considered yet).

(07-10-2014 11:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That's not what they are saying. ESPN has certain bills to pay. All those yearly rights costs to confernces and professional leagues have to be paid every year--regardless of the number of subscribers or how much they will pay. Plus there are some costs for on-air talent, studios, and live game production (on air staff and crew). The reality is ESPN would likely lose their azz over the short term. Over the longer term, rights fees would drop to a levels that would be sustainable for ESPN under the new carriage model---or ESPN would simply go away in favor of a new delivery system that's able to throw off more earnings to the leagues and conferences (could be direct digital delivery, conference networks, or something we have not considered yet).

True, they have bills to pay, but they are also very profitable, so their profit margin might just have to take a hit until rights fees correct themselves.

Bigger schools will have own network / pay distribution.

Marques games, Playoffs, NC will be payed for by networks.

The reality is, most a la carte programming being discussed is BY channel, not by program... by program a la carte has existed for decades and a national platform network was created in 1985 and is called PAY-PER-VIEW and has been actually shrinking in volume in recent years, because its expensive to viewers and events want more money than a limited number of viewers can provide... which is why networks like ESPN and HBO have been buying rights to more and more live events!

A la carte would kill the revenue of the big 10 network and others. Grandma and single mom's don't care about any sports conference. Many channels would flat out fold which is fine with me.

ESPN would survive because many would pick up the $15 tab or whatever. They probably wouldn't have the jack to pay conferences billions anymore but who cares. Time for college sports to get back to filling scholarships and school pride over paying Saban $7 million per year.

(07-10-2014 03:10 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  A la carte would kill the revenue of the big 10 network and others. Grandma and single mom's don't care about any sports conference. Many channels would flat out fold which is fine with me.

ESPN would survive because many would pick up the $15 tab or whatever. They probably wouldn't have the jack to pay conferences billions anymore but who cares. Time for college sports to get back to filling scholarships and school pride over paying Saban $7 million per year.

saban has won more bcs national championships than the pac 10, the big 10, the big 12, or the acc. i would say he has earned 7 million a year considering the amount of money involved. if someone could guarantee your school 4 national championships over the next 10-11 years they would pay 7 million in a heartbeat.

(07-10-2014 04:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 03:10 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  A la carte would kill the revenue of the big 10 network and others. Grandma and single mom's don't care about any sports conference. Many channels would flat out fold which is fine with me.

ESPN would survive because many would pick up the $15 tab or whatever. They probably wouldn't have the jack to pay conferences billions anymore but who cares. Time for college sports to get back to filling scholarships and school pride over paying Saban $7 million per year.

saban has won more bcs national championships than the pac 10, the big 10, the big 12, or the acc. i would say he has earned 7 million a year considering the amount of money involved. if someone could guarantee your school 4 national championships over the next 10-11 years they would pay 7 million in a heartbeat.

I think thats what hes saying. That type of money shouldnt be involved, but its the free market.

Alabama coaches flight record, recruiting

Saw this in the paper today, it is really amazing to me.

(07-10-2014 12:08 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 11:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That's not what they are saying. ESPN has certain bills to pay. All those yearly rights costs to confernces and professional leagues have to be paid every year--regardless of the number of subscribers or how much they will pay. Plus there are some costs for on-air talent, studios, and live game production (on air staff and crew). The reality is ESPN would likely lose their azz over the short term. Over the longer term, rights fees would drop to a levels that would be sustainable for ESPN under the new carriage model---or ESPN would simply go away in favor of a new delivery system that's able to throw off more earnings to the leagues and conferences (could be direct digital delivery, conference networks, or something we have not considered yet).

True, they have bills to pay, but they are also very profitable, so their profit margin might just have to take a hit until rights fees correct themselves.

Their profits are in decline


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Just my opinion, I don't think a la carte will damage the conference networks much. If the conference networks take back all content they will have their fans paying to watch the captive games (the B10 has millions watch their best regular season games).

If the BTN is in 60M homes now, I'm sure they can find a few million to pay per game or get a discount to watch any game during the season to make up the per subscriber/month they collect now.

The bigger problems are still for the smaller conferences and the "grandma" channels who will no longer have the coveted demographic paying for them anymore. Reason #1 I doubt a la carte ever comes about, the current system doesn't benefit just sports.

(07-10-2014 10:51 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 10:19 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  For instance, without non-sports programming subsidizing sports television how much would ESPN cost?:

"According to a recent report from a Needham analyst, $30 a month. Or more than five times what ESPN presently costs. (Other reports have varied on the cost, ranging from $20-$30 a month. Regardless, there's no doubt that ESPN - and all sports networks -- would have to drastically increase their costs to make up for the sudden revenue shortfall from much fewer subscribers."

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ans-072113

ESPN will be pushing for teams that will help them cover the lost television sets that they were in when bundled with other programming.

Reports like that are always so alarmist, and fail to take into consideration that every product or service has a price point that is or will be dictated by how "many people" are willing to pay "how much". ESPN can't just look at "well, we make X now with Y subscribers so if we fell to Z subscribers we'd have to charge W..." because there might not be enough people willing to pay W. They cannot charge more than people are willing to pay or they won't have an audience.

But responses like this fail to understand that ala carte actually exists now. Do you have HBO? Costs $15 per month. Netflix: $8-$20 per month. Disney used to be ala carte and cost as much as HBO.

So if HBO can charge $15 per month, and espn can charge 4 times as much as the next highest channel, then the market will easily allow them to charge twice what HBO charges: or $30 per month. Especially when espn is bundled with Disney channel.

(07-10-2014 04:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 03:10 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  A la carte would kill the revenue of the big 10 network and others. Grandma and single mom's don't care about any sports conference. Many channels would flat out fold which is fine with me.

ESPN would survive because many would pick up the $15 tab or whatever. They probably wouldn't have the jack to pay conferences billions anymore but who cares. Time for college sports to get back to filling scholarships and school pride over paying Saban $7 million per year.

saban has won more bcs national championships than the pac 10, the big 10, the big 12, or the acc. i would say he has earned 7 million a year considering the amount of money involved. if someone could guarantee your school 4 national championships over the next 10-11 years they would pay 7 million in a heartbeat.

shere kahn, I couldn't agree with what KNIGHTTIME said here more. Quote "A la carte would kill the revenue of the big 10 network and others. Grandma and single mom's don't care about any sports conference. Many channels would flat out fold which is fine with me. ESPN would survive because many would pick up the $15 tab or whatever. They probably wouldn't have the jack to pay conferences billions anymore but who cares. Time for college sports to get back to filling scholarships and school pride That's what I think too. Not only that, that's what I WANT TO HAPPEN. A la carte programming would be a dream come true for me. Trust me, not just the B10 network, but also ESPN will be dropped by millions and millions of people who simply don't pay attention to college sports, and the big TV contracts being paid to conferences will have to end. I don't want the Big 10 network. I have it. It comes with the sports package I buy with Direct TV. Trust me, if I could save a few dollars with out paying for the big 10 network I would do it. I'm going away for annual army training next week and will be gone for a month. It feels so good to cancel my cable for even 1 month. How I wish I could cancel it forever but I love college football too much......It's not possible to watch your team without cable unless you're a Notre Dame fan, (NBC) or a fan of some SEC school (CBS game of the week) or simply get lucky once or twice a year and your team comes on FOX or ABC...That ain't happening much for our schools' teams..God bless CBS for showing Army vs Navy, Army vs Air Force and Navy vs Air Force for free though! I can't believe I have to thank God for the opportunity to watch the academies play football against each other without paying for it!! That's what cable has done to college football.

a la carte would kill the bottom half of every big conference team. Alabama, Texas, USC, Michigan type schools are gonna pull big money no matter what. The Iowa State, Miss State, Wash State, Wakes, Syracuses of the world are gonna be in trouble along with us.