(01-24-2014 11:41 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote: (01-24-2014 11:27 AM)TerryD Wrote: I don't watch a second of the BTN. I won't watch a second of the SEC Network.
I can't imagine anyone outside of the ACC having one speck of interest in any possible future ACC Network.
I don't want a nickel of my money going to the Big Ten or SEC. It is extortion to make me pay for content that I dislike, not merely don't watch.
And before anyone talks about "bundling" versus ala carte, I don't care if TV retracts to three channels again.
I really do wonder if when we look back on the industry changes five or ten years from now, that these conference networks might not mark the time the cable companies went to the bundling well once too often.
I can see a huge groundswell of people thinking like this and being pissed off about it enough to finally buck against the system. And since all of this is ESPN-driven and since ESPN is supposedly massively subsidized by bundling, they may rue the day that they went down this road.
Interesting discussion. Looking back just a few years, it is easy to see all of the once profitable enterprises (CDs, video store on every corner, the computer superstore, etc.) that have been largely reduced to the dustbin of history by an ever changing market where technological shifts are constantly occurring.
IMO, people who look at the CURRENT status-quo and assume that the current environment will be frozen in time forever are naive. I chuckle when fans of a particular conference gleefully project out what they expect conference earnings will be well into the future based on numerous assumptions which may or may not pan out as some TODAY expect.
Just my opionion, but I think many of the projections bandied about in these threads are based on speculative assumptions:
1. Will conferences who form their own networks convince millions of subscribers to pay extra $$ for cable access to these networks? People forget that even in the most rabid sports regions, actual fan viewership that follow Team A or B are still a minority of the total viewers. If a sporting event does a 35 share - a huge number, doesn't that mean that the majority of viewers at that time are watching something else? The value proposition put forth here is that enough of these viewers will acquiesce to paying a premium for something they will not be watching is an interesting theory.
2. The other thing I chuckle about is when posters in these threads compare the CURRENT media deals that a conference may enjoy and assume that any disparities between conferences will exist forever going forward. Most of these deals will be up for renegotiation within 10-12 years after they have been concluded; and during that time so much can happen. At the very least, major technological change and population shifts will have a huge impact on how future deals are struck. Since most of these conferences have been in existence for many decades - in some cases 75 years or so, a 10-12 year TV deal is not a huge amount of time.
Of course, we will see how it all plays out in the future.