(09-28-2019 11:06 AM)pablowow Wrote: My take is the power 5 structure is already in place...it will not drop to power 4 regardless of movement from the Big 12 schools (Texas, Oklahoma) the leftovers have already secured that with the power 5 being the voting structure...I do think they will roll up the AAC...in the shift and the rest of the power conferences will add a couple of teams in the transition...this ESPN+ deal with the Big 12 tells me they are mimicking the AAC structure and it will be seamless in 2025 as far as the TV rights structure it will roll up the AAC contract with a bump in value ....
West..
TCU.
SMU
Texas tech
BYU
Tulsa
Iowa State
Baylor
Tulsa
Kansas state
East
Cincinnati
Navy
Temple
West Virginia
ECU
UCF
USF
Tulane
Memphis
Leave conference for SEC/Big 10
Oklahoma
Oklahoma state
Kansas
Texas
(09-28-2019 11:06 AM)pablowow Wrote: My take is the power 5 structure is already in place...it will not drop to power 4 regardless of movement from the Big 12 schools (Texas, Oklahoma) the leftovers have already secured that with the power 5 being the voting structure...I do think they will roll up the AAC...in the shift and the rest of the power conferences will add a couple of teams in the transition...this ESPN+ deal with the Big 12 tells me they are mimicking the AAC structure and it will be seamless in 2025 as far as the TV rights structure it will roll up the AAC contract with a bump in value ....
West..
TCU.
SMU
Texas tech
BYU
Tulsa
Iowa State
Baylor
Tulsa
Kansas state
East
Cincinnati
Navy
Temple
West Virginia
ECU
UCF
USF
Tulane
Memphis
Leave conference for SEC/Big 10
Oklahoma
Oklahoma state
Kansas
Texas
(01-04-2020 05:30 PM)Big Frog II Wrote: Get use to streaming service. It's the wave of the future for us sports fans.
The funny thing is that it's really not remotely a big deal. Get a Roku/Amazon Fire Stick/Apple TV/Google Chromecast and hook it up. It's that simple.
USFFan
Yes, thanks to Smart TVs streaming is extremely easy even on your big TV set, which is what most people want.
So having games on ESPN+ and other streaming isn't a big deal to fans. I am a totally unsophisticated streamer but have zero problem pulling up a game on ESPN+ on any device from a 7" phone to a 65" TV. But, it remains a big deal to the conferences, because streaming is still viewed as a second-tier kind of thing.
Even moreso than money, university life is mostly about prestige, and conferences know there is a pecking order of status as to where the games are aired, with streaming being at the bottom. A commissioner - and the members - want to hold press conferences where they can boast about how many games are being aired on OTA FOX or NBC or CBS or the ESPN cable family etc. but get defensive when asked how many games are being "moved" to ESPN+, Facebook Stadium, etc.
So there's still that.
Perhaps, but then again, it once was considered beneath a movie star to be in a TV show. Or to be on a TV show that wasn't on a major network. Perceived biases as something that is beneath the biggest "stars" fade over time. My bet is that within 10 years, the "prestige" aspect of this will have largely disappeared.
(01-04-2020 05:30 PM)Big Frog II Wrote: Get use to streaming service. It's the wave of the future for us sports fans.
The funny thing is that it's really not remotely a big deal. Get a Roku/Amazon Fire Stick/Apple TV/Google Chromecast and hook it up. It's that simple.
USFFan
Yes, thanks to Smart TVs streaming is extremely easy even on your big TV set, which is what most people want.
So having games on ESPN+ and other streaming isn't a big deal to fans. I am a totally unsophisticated streamer but have zero problem pulling up a game on ESPN+ on any device from a 7" phone to a 65" TV. But, it remains a big deal to the conferences, because streaming is still viewed as a second-tier kind of thing.
Even moreso than money, university life is mostly about prestige, and conferences know there is a pecking order of status as to where the games are aired, with streaming being at the bottom. A commissioner - and the members - want to hold press conferences where they can boast about how many games are being aired on OTA FOX or NBC or CBS or the ESPN cable family etc. but get defensive when asked how many games are being "moved" to ESPN+, Facebook Stadium, etc.
So there's still that.
Perhaps, but then again, it once was considered beneath a movie star to be in a TV show. Or to be on a TV show that wasn't on a major network. Perceived biases as something that is beneath the biggest "stars" fade over time. My bet is that within 10 years, the "prestige" aspect of this will have largely disappeared.
USFFan
Or even worse, a commercial! Now it common for stars to do commercials.
(01-04-2020 05:30 PM)Big Frog II Wrote: Get use to streaming service. It's the wave of the future for us sports fans.
The funny thing is that it's really not remotely a big deal. Get a Roku/Amazon Fire Stick/Apple TV/Google Chromecast and hook it up. It's that simple.
USFFan
Yes, thanks to Smart TVs streaming is extremely easy even on your big TV set, which is what most people want.
So having games on ESPN+ and other streaming isn't a big deal to fans. I am a totally unsophisticated streamer but have zero problem pulling up a game on ESPN+ on any device from a 7" phone to a 65" TV. But, it remains a big deal to the conferences, because streaming is still viewed as a second-tier kind of thing.
Even moreso than money, university life is mostly about prestige, and conferences know there is a pecking order of status as to where the games are aired, with streaming being at the bottom. A commissioner - and the members - want to hold press conferences where they can boast about how many games are being aired on OTA FOX or NBC or CBS or the ESPN cable family etc. but get defensive when asked how many games are being "moved" to ESPN+, Facebook Stadium, etc.
So there's still that.
Perhaps, but then again, it once was considered beneath a movie star to be in a TV show. Or to be on a TV show that wasn't on a major network. Perceived biases as something that is beneath the biggest "stars" fade over time. My bet is that within 10 years, the "prestige" aspect of this will have largely disappeared.
USFFan
No question, perspectives can change. But as of now there is still that stigma.
I don’t think it’s stigma as it is status that comes with the flagship stations, and that is still a thing of accessibility. Cable and broadcast isn’t dead yet. It’s just nice to know that access to these niche stations are more available and no longer boutique, but, that isn’t the same as being on one of the standard stations.
And the standards are expanding. Heck, ten years ago, where I used to work, we weren’t even tracking content on ESPN2. That’s a coveted station now. And consider what CBS does for the tournament...
"As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
(01-06-2020 08:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: "As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
(01-06-2020 08:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: "As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
Good read, makes a lot of sense. There is another audience like myself that would rather go without broadband all together.
Right. And while you're seeing these cord-cutter and cord-never populations rising, it's just that. A somewhat significant shift. But not a majority? So, what about everyone else? And, there are people who may just not want to adopt?
I know some old school southeastern Penn State fans who are frustrated by all of these shifts. You didn't need more than basic cable to get Penn State games; many were locally carried. That's not the case now. And they just won't buy into upgrading packages to find PSU "deeper" down the dial (and it's hardly that deep, if at all).
It's definitely been a gradual, slow pace. Apparently, that's still too fast?
(01-06-2020 08:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: "As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
Good read, makes a lot of sense. There is another audience like myself that would rather go without broadband all together.
Right. And while you're seeing these cord-cutter and cord-never populations rising, it's just that. A somewhat significant shift. But not a majority? So, what about everyone else? And, there are people who may just not want to adopt?
I know some old school southeastern Penn State fans who are frustrated by all of these shifts. You didn't need more than basic cable to get Penn State games; many were locally carried. That's not the case now. And they just won't buy into upgrading packages to find PSU "deeper" down the dial (and it's hardly that deep, if at all).
It's definitely been a gradual, slow pace. Apparently, that's still too fast?
What's funny about the teeth gnashing about moving to streaming is the notion that old people being frustrated at not being able to see the games. It was only 35 years ago that the lawsuit between the NCAA and Georgia & Oklahoma allowed more than 1 ABC game of the week to exist. It's not like there's a century of tradition here that's being messed with. Those pining for the old days have quickly forgotten that we're not that far removed from NONE of the games being available, and having to watch Lindsey Nelson give Notre Dame highlights on a Sunday morning. Some of us are old enough to remember the phrase "after an exchange of punts, we move to further action in the game."
(01-06-2020 08:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: "As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
Good read, makes a lot of sense. There is another audience like myself that would rather go without broadband all together.
Right. And while you're seeing these cord-cutter and cord-never populations rising, it's just that. A somewhat significant shift. But not a majority? So, what about everyone else? And, there are people who may just not want to adopt?
I know some old school southeastern Penn State fans who are frustrated by all of these shifts. You didn't need more than basic cable to get Penn State games; many were locally carried. That's not the case now. And they just won't buy into upgrading packages to find PSU "deeper" down the dial (and it's hardly that deep, if at all).
It's definitely been a gradual, slow pace. Apparently, that's still too fast?
What's funny about the teeth gnashing about moving to streaming is the notion that old people being frustrated at not being able to see the games. It was only 35 years ago that the lawsuit between the NCAA and Georgia & Oklahoma allowed more than 1 ABC game of the week to exist. It's not like there's a century of tradition here that's being messed with. Those pining for the old days have quickly forgotten that we're not that far removed from NONE of the games being available, and having to watch Lindsey Nelson give Notre Dame highlights on a Sunday morning. Some of us are old enough to remember the phrase "after an exchange of punts, we move to further action in the game."
USFFan
I would say 35 years is a pretty long time. You've got to be in your 50s to remember when there was just a game or two of college football on each week.
(01-06-2020 08:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: "As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
Good read, makes a lot of sense. There is another audience like myself that would rather go without broadband all together.
Right. And while you're seeing these cord-cutter and cord-never populations rising, it's just that. A somewhat significant shift. But not a majority? So, what about everyone else? And, there are people who may just not want to adopt?
I know some old school southeastern Penn State fans who are frustrated by all of these shifts. You didn't need more than basic cable to get Penn State games; many were locally carried. That's not the case now. And they just won't buy into upgrading packages to find PSU "deeper" down the dial (and it's hardly that deep, if at all).
It's definitely been a gradual, slow pace. Apparently, that's still too fast?
What's funny about the teeth gnashing about moving to streaming is the notion that old people being frustrated at not being able to see the games. It was only 35 years ago that the lawsuit between the NCAA and Georgia & Oklahoma allowed more than 1 ABC game of the week to exist. It's not like there's a century of tradition here that's being messed with. Those pining for the old days have quickly forgotten that we're not that far removed from NONE of the games being available, and having to watch Lindsey Nelson give Notre Dame highlights on a Sunday morning. Some of us are old enough to remember the phrase "after an exchange of punts, we move to further action in the game."
USFFan
I would say 35 years is a pretty long time. You've got to be in your 50s to remember when there was just a game or two of college football on each week.
You think the people whining about streaming aren't also at least in their 50's?
(01-06-2020 08:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: "As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
Good read, makes a lot of sense. There is another audience like myself that would rather go without broadband all together.
Right. And while you're seeing these cord-cutter and cord-never populations rising, it's just that. A somewhat significant shift. But not a majority? So, what about everyone else? And, there are people who may just not want to adopt?
I know some old school southeastern Penn State fans who are frustrated by all of these shifts. You didn't need more than basic cable to get Penn State games; many were locally carried. That's not the case now. And they just won't buy into upgrading packages to find PSU "deeper" down the dial (and it's hardly that deep, if at all).
It's definitely been a gradual, slow pace. Apparently, that's still too fast?
What's funny about the teeth gnashing about moving to streaming is the notion that old people being frustrated at not being able to see the games. It was only 35 years ago that the lawsuit between the NCAA and Georgia & Oklahoma allowed more than 1 ABC game of the week to exist. It's not like there's a century of tradition here that's being messed with. Those pining for the old days have quickly forgotten that we're not that far removed from NONE of the games being available, and having to watch Lindsey Nelson give Notre Dame highlights on a Sunday morning. Some of us are old enough to remember the phrase "after an exchange of punts, we move to further action in the game."
USFFan
Well radio was an accepted way to get the game in those days. And the announcers were good.
(01-06-2020 08:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: "As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
Good read, makes a lot of sense. There is another audience like myself that would rather go without broadband all together.
Right. And while you're seeing these cord-cutter and cord-never populations rising, it's just that. A somewhat significant shift. But not a majority? So, what about everyone else? And, there are people who may just not want to adopt?
I know some old school southeastern Penn State fans who are frustrated by all of these shifts. You didn't need more than basic cable to get Penn State games; many were locally carried. That's not the case now. And they just won't buy into upgrading packages to find PSU "deeper" down the dial (and it's hardly that deep, if at all).
It's definitely been a gradual, slow pace. Apparently, that's still too fast?
What's funny about the teeth gnashing about moving to streaming is the notion that old people being frustrated at not being able to see the games. It was only 35 years ago that the lawsuit between the NCAA and Georgia & Oklahoma allowed more than 1 ABC game of the week to exist. It's not like there's a century of tradition here that's being messed with. Those pining for the old days have quickly forgotten that we're not that far removed from NONE of the games being available, and having to watch Lindsey Nelson give Notre Dame highlights on a Sunday morning. Some of us are old enough to remember the phrase "after an exchange of punts, we move to further action in the game."
USFFan
Well radio was an accepted way to get the game in those days. And the announcers were good.
I'm 100% confident that every team can be heard on the radio these days. But I'm with you on the snipe at the announcers. I personally don't like homer announcers who are openly rooting for a team.
But the point remains - how is all of this somehow more desirable than streaming?
(01-06-2020 08:53 AM)Garrettabc Wrote: Good read, makes a lot of sense. There is another audience like myself that would rather go without broadband all together.
Right. And while you're seeing these cord-cutter and cord-never populations rising, it's just that. A somewhat significant shift. But not a majority? So, what about everyone else? And, there are people who may just not want to adopt?
I know some old school southeastern Penn State fans who are frustrated by all of these shifts. You didn't need more than basic cable to get Penn State games; many were locally carried. That's not the case now. And they just won't buy into upgrading packages to find PSU "deeper" down the dial (and it's hardly that deep, if at all).
It's definitely been a gradual, slow pace. Apparently, that's still too fast?
What's funny about the teeth gnashing about moving to streaming is the notion that old people being frustrated at not being able to see the games. It was only 35 years ago that the lawsuit between the NCAA and Georgia & Oklahoma allowed more than 1 ABC game of the week to exist. It's not like there's a century of tradition here that's being messed with. Those pining for the old days have quickly forgotten that we're not that far removed from NONE of the games being available, and having to watch Lindsey Nelson give Notre Dame highlights on a Sunday morning. Some of us are old enough to remember the phrase "after an exchange of punts, we move to further action in the game."
USFFan
Well radio was an accepted way to get the game in those days. And the announcers were good.
I'm 100% confident that every team can be heard on the radio these days. But I'm with you on the snipe at the announcers. I personally don't like homer announcers who are openly rooting for a team.
But the point remains - how is all of this somehow more desirable than streaming?
USFFan
I don't mind them rooting for the team. But when they bellyache about a call or non-call on every play, it gets old.
The point is that it was accepted back then. When you expect something, you don't want it taken away.
But the current system is unsustainable. Sports fans are being subsidized by non-sports fans. They will find alternative ways to get entertainment and sports fans will pay more. That's only fair. But the total revenue is going to be less than under the current model. Otherwise, everyone would have been doing PPV instead of conference networks.
(01-06-2020 08:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: "As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
Good read, makes a lot of sense. There is another audience like myself that would rather go without broadband all together.
Right. And while you're seeing these cord-cutter and cord-never populations rising, it's just that. A somewhat significant shift. But not a majority? So, what about everyone else? And, there are people who may just not want to adopt?
I know some old school southeastern Penn State fans who are frustrated by all of these shifts. You didn't need more than basic cable to get Penn State games; many were locally carried. That's not the case now. And they just won't buy into upgrading packages to find PSU "deeper" down the dial (and it's hardly that deep, if at all).
It's definitely been a gradual, slow pace. Apparently, that's still too fast?
What's funny about the teeth gnashing about moving to streaming is the notion that old people being frustrated at not being able to see the games. It was only 35 years ago that the lawsuit between the NCAA and Georgia & Oklahoma allowed more than 1 ABC game of the week to exist. It's not like there's a century of tradition here that's being messed with. Those pining for the old days have quickly forgotten that we're not that far removed from NONE of the games being available, and having to watch Lindsey Nelson give Notre Dame highlights on a Sunday morning. Some of us are old enough to remember the phrase "after an exchange of punts, we move to further action in the game."
USFFan
I would say 35 years is a pretty long time. You've got to be in your 50s to remember when there was just a game or two of college football on each week.
Nah, try upper end of the 30's. We only went to cable in the mid to late 80's. I got into football very young; I remember 2-3 games at best back then: Penn State and maybe Notre Dame was what you consistently got out here. Maybe one of the Service Academies, Pitt, or someone else regionally on CBS. It wasn't like cable poured it on. (EDIT: Radio, otoh...)
My house had more options in the 90's, with ESPN and Sports Channel. The 94 season, when Penn State and Nebraska were having undefeated seasons, football pretty much west of the Mississippi, with the exception of the late night games we'd get on ESPN for WAC/Hawaii, or some minor PAC-10 game, was invisible to us. But, more games...just not that much more.
We didn't really make a big shift in upgrading cable, but we got more stations as cable expanded in the 90's. By the end of the 90's, college football was a bit easier to find, but, even then, you had other regional teams you couldn't always see in these parts (Philly and the burbs).
Up in these parts, you really could only rely on Penn State being universally accessible, cable or no. I wanted to see Pitt and Temple games; anything from the Big East...carriage tended to hover over the ranked Big East teams (I remember seeing Miami and Syracuse often), and not the others.
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2020 12:13 PM by The Cutter of Bish.)
(01-06-2020 08:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: "As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
Good read, makes a lot of sense. There is another audience like myself that would rather go without broadband all together.
Right. And while you're seeing these cord-cutter and cord-never populations rising, it's just that. A somewhat significant shift. But not a majority? So, what about everyone else? And, there are people who may just not want to adopt?
I know some old school southeastern Penn State fans who are frustrated by all of these shifts. You didn't need more than basic cable to get Penn State games; many were locally carried. That's not the case now. And they just won't buy into upgrading packages to find PSU "deeper" down the dial (and it's hardly that deep, if at all).
It's definitely been a gradual, slow pace. Apparently, that's still too fast?
What's funny about the teeth gnashing about moving to streaming is the notion that old people being frustrated at not being able to see the games. It was only 35 years ago that the lawsuit between the NCAA and Georgia & Oklahoma allowed more than 1 ABC game of the week to exist. It's not like there's a century of tradition here that's being messed with. Those pining for the old days have quickly forgotten that we're not that far removed from NONE of the games being available, and having to watch Lindsey Nelson give Notre Dame highlights on a Sunday morning. Some of us are old enough to remember the phrase "after an exchange of punts, we move to further action in the game."
USFFan
I would say 35 years is a pretty long time. You've got to be in your 50s to remember when there was just a game or two of college football on each week.
I actually think there was a pretty seismic increase in the availability of games during the first decade of this century in terms of the availability of games on linear TV and that has been walked back gradually over the past few years. I can get Illini football and basketball games anywhere nationally with a basic cable package via the combination of ESPN, Fox networks and BTN in a way that I couldn't when I graduated from college in 2000. That was a pretty huge development that's still the case for Big Ten, SEC and ACC fans.
In contrast, a school like Kansas went from a large increase in linear TV games over the past 10 to 15 years to now suddenly getting pared back to streaming this season. So, the perception of game availability (or lack thereof) for those fans is being compared to much more recent times.
This is actually even more pronounced in some other sports, such as soccer. In the first part of the 2010s, international soccer coverage exploded on linear TV, particularly with the English Premier League on the NBC networks and the Champions League on the Fox networks. However, within a few years, NBC started requiring a separate subscription to streamed EPL games that used to be available for "free" (as long as you had a cable subscription) on TV Everywhere apps. When the Champions League games moved to Turner, the number of games on linear TV was cut down by more than half... and it's going to be reduced even further when CBS gets the package in a couple of years. There was a peak linear TV availability for international soccer a few years ago and that's now getting reduced bit by bit seemingly every year.
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2020 12:21 PM by Frank the Tank.)
(01-06-2020 08:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: "As technology and viewing habits change, professional leagues and college sports are constantly trying to stay on the cutting edge of how fans consume their games and programming. But while everyone wants to look forward to what’s coming next, are we leaving behind huge swaths of sports-consuming audiences who don’t have the means or ability to follow?"
Good read, makes a lot of sense. There is another audience like myself that would rather go without broadband all together.
Right. And while you're seeing these cord-cutter and cord-never populations rising, it's just that. A somewhat significant shift. But not a majority? So, what about everyone else? And, there are people who may just not want to adopt?
I know some old school southeastern Penn State fans who are frustrated by all of these shifts. You didn't need more than basic cable to get Penn State games; many were locally carried. That's not the case now. And they just won't buy into upgrading packages to find PSU "deeper" down the dial (and it's hardly that deep, if at all).
It's definitely been a gradual, slow pace. Apparently, that's still too fast?
What's funny about the teeth gnashing about moving to streaming is the notion that old people being frustrated at not being able to see the games. It was only 35 years ago that the lawsuit between the NCAA and Georgia & Oklahoma allowed more than 1 ABC game of the week to exist. It's not like there's a century of tradition here that's being messed with. Those pining for the old days have quickly forgotten that we're not that far removed from NONE of the games being available, and having to watch Lindsey Nelson give Notre Dame highlights on a Sunday morning. Some of us are old enough to remember the phrase "after an exchange of punts, we move to further action in the game."
USFFan
Right.
The premise of that article is "OMG OMG there are some people who can't watch 100% of the games of 100% of the teams for free."
That premise requires some bizarre assumptions, including:
(1) Everyone really cares a lot about being able to watch every game of every team, and
(2) Revenue will magically flow to TV networks and to pro/college teams when every game can be watched by everyone for free or almost free.
I am certain that neither of those assumptions are true, but I guess everyone's entitled to their own take.
(01-06-2020 11:53 AM)bullet Wrote: But the current system is unsustainable. Sports fans are being subsidized by non-sports fans. They will find alternative ways to get entertainment and sports fans will pay more. That's only fair. But the total revenue is going to be less than under the current model. Otherwise, everyone would have been doing PPV instead of conference networks.
On the one hand, you're absolutely correct that sports fans are being subsidized by non-sports fans. I say this every time that I see a sports fan advocate for a la carte pricing. Too many sports fan mistakenly think that they're paying a lot for HGTV/TLC/Hallmark/etc., where the reality is that the HGTV/TLC/Hallmark viewers are the ones subsidizing sports fans' viewing habits on ESPN and regional sports networks. Virtually all sports fans would pay a LOT more in an a la carte environment with likely less content than they have available to them now.
On the other hand, non-sports fans are worth a whole lot less as viewers than sports fans... and that's increasingly being the case. That's evidenced in the other thread showing how sporting events now completely dominate the ratings and they're essentially the only type of programming that any network can consistently depend upon to draw a live audience.
Separately, I believe that we're going to get to the point where there's a limit to the desirability of (1) a la carte options and (2) the price difference between streaming versus bundled cable (and we might be already there). When Netflix was bringing in Disney, Comcast/Universal and Warner Bros. content all together in one place for one low price, that really did seem like a substitute for cable. However, with Disney now splitting off with its own streaming service and Comcast/Universal and Warner Bros. also doing the same, we're almost certainly going to get to the point where the average consumer doesn't want to manage so many different subscriptions and get back to a single point of payment... which means a reversion to the bundle. It might be a bundle of streaming services as opposed to cable channels, but it will be a bundle nonetheless.
Either way, sports programming will still be uniquely valuable in whatever environment that we end up in. That's why people have been predicting a sports rights fee bubble for decades (whether it was when network TV still dominated, or cable TV started rising, or now when streaming options are more prevalent) and they have been wrong every single time. There's an inherent value in sporting events because they are live and exclusive with a built-in fan base that isn't going anywhere. Even the greatest TV shows all eventually end, but a network can still bank on Cowboys, Yankees, Lakers and Alabama fans to exist 5, 10, 15 or 20 years down the road. They're TV shows that networks don't need to convince people to watch because the fan bases are already built in. There's nothing that even comes close to providing that consistent value, so that's why sports continue to receive a huge premium in rights fees.
