"What if I told you, that monitoring a situation, moves you backwards." ESPN 30 for 30 presents Small Potatoes 2, the life and career of Jeffrey Bourne.

(08-09-2017 06:20 AM)jjthebutcher Wrote:  

(08-09-2017 12:38 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 10:01 PM)Dukester Wrote:  BDK - you seem to be able to look up almost anything.

When's the last time JMU has not had a regular season game televised in football?

Please don't include madizone or espn3.

90's?

I know there has been multiple every season going back to at least 2004. Before that I don't know. Schedules prior to that (and box scores) don't say whether or not the games were televised. I would guess somewhere late 90s to early 00s.

We had games on TV each year back to at least 95. Probably had a game a year on since home team sports started.. Heck when we were D3 we played Bridgewater on ABC (yes the national ABC) it was the first D3 game broadcast on national TV I think

This is big time fail to be this close to the season no TV. I understand things are changing and going OTT. But come on, this is your job dude. I could have probably cut a deal to stream games by now in my spare time..

I remember the Hampden Sydney game on TV when we were top 3 ranked DIII and Jim Lampley was broadcasting with our players on the sideline. We lost on national TV that day.

Okay I may have to outlaw posting on this thread until there's ACTUAL news released by the CAA. What is the over/under that we'll all die in a blaze of "fire and fury" first? I think the odds are good.

If we have not regular season TV coverage aka = to Bridgewater - this is not a good thing.

Even the postseason TV coverage will be similiar to DII and DIII.

5 Regular season games were on TV via Cable/Dish last year.

TV coverage, or lack of - might be a bigger deal to recruits than FBS vs FCS

I know. Now I'm just being a hypocrite by posting about a non-caa tv deal in the tv deal thread.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/busin...&smtyp=cur

"The ESPN streaming service will arrive early next year, Mr. Iger said. It will include baseball, hockey, tennis and college sports — about 10,000 regional and national events in its first year. Users will be able to access the service through an enhanced version of ESPN’s current app, which includes news, highlights and scores. People who pay to receive ESPN the old-fashioned way (via a cable or satellite provider) will be able to access standard ESPN programming through the same app."

IMO, this could finally be the beginning of the end of traditional cable and satellite tv. That's a good thing. To hell with Comcast and their overpriced packages and ****** customer service.

(08-09-2017 11:35 AM)Potomac Wrote:  I know. Now I'm just being a hypocrite by posting about a non-caa tv deal in the tv deal thread.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/busin...&smtyp=cur

"The ESPN streaming service will arrive early next year, Mr. Iger said. It will include baseball, hockey, tennis and college sports — about 10,000 regional and national events in its first year. Users will be able to access the service through an enhanced version of ESPN’s current app, which includes news, highlights and scores. People who pay to receive ESPN the old-fashioned way (via a cable or satellite provider) will be able to access standard ESPN programming through the same app."

IMO, this could finally be the beginning of the end of traditional cable and satellite tv. That's a good thing. To hell with Comcast and their overpriced packages and ****** customer service.

sounds good in theory.

But Disney doing the same thing and pulling out from Netflix is a bad, bad sign.

if every ESPN/Disney channel is going direct-to-consumer in the future and asking for 6.99 to 9.99 a month for access, it's going to be awfully expensive for cord cutters. That day is coming. It may be some time before it happens. But that kind of a la carte is going to make people wish for the days of bundling again.

If the Disney move is successful, it's going to be pretty quick that you see other channels/network pull out of Netflix/Hulu, etc and go direct.

Yeah. it's actually a bad sign for netflix. It's a good thing their exclusive content has gained a good reputation on its own. Netflix needs to get into the sports realm and do so TODAY. They are quickly lagging behind if they expect to stay a leader.

it's a bad sign for the consumer.

(08-09-2017 01:00 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  it's a bad sign for the consumer.

The consumer has wanted a la carte options for decades. If all they want is Netflix, HBO and ESPN, they're spending much less at $10-$15 each per month than they're spending on a $150-$200/month cable bill.

What will happen, or is already happening, is ISP's are jacking up their rates realizing you're going to need that.

So $80 a month for higher end internet, $50 a month for a combination of content you want. You're probably still saving $50+ a month for the same thing. You're no longer having to pay for Hallmark Channel that you never watch.

It really depends on what specifically a consumer wants to purchase and what the prices are. Most people aren't stupid. If they do the math and realize they're paying almost the same, or even more, for a variety of a la carte subscriptions than they are for their current cable... they'll just stay with their cable company.

Media companies are going to have to be aggressive with how cheap their subscriptions are if they want to convince someone to come over. That's how Netflix blew up. They used to be as cheap as $7 a month for unlimited streaming access.

why is unbundling a bad sign for the consumer?

(08-09-2017 01:00 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  it's a bad sign for the consumer.

Kind of agree, but isn't this the a la' carte pricing we have all be clamouring for? Consumers will just have to make hard choices about what "channels" they want to pay for. Most consumers will choose a few or many and have to abandon some exiting "channels" that only have one show they like, for example.

i haven't been clamouring for it.

just add it up:

start with 50-80 for internet access, depending on how fast you want it to be.
then you do your a la carte channels.

i pay about 175 a month now for Fios...internet access plus boxes and DVR service.

can i get all the channels my family wants for less than 100 a la carte?

I highly doubt it.

(08-09-2017 01:07 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(08-09-2017 01:00 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  it's a bad sign for the consumer.

The consumer has wanted a la carte options for decades. If all they want is Netflix, HBO and ESPN, they're spending much less at $10-$15 each per month than they're spending on a $150-$200/month cable bill.

What will happen, or is already happening, is ISP's are jacking up their rates realizing you're going to need that.

So $80 a month for higher end internet, $50 a month for a combination of content you want. You're probably still saving $50+ a month for the same thing. You're no longer having to pay for Hallmark Channel that you never watch.

It really depends on what specifically a consumer wants to purchase and what the prices are. Most people aren't stupid. If they do the math and realize they're paying almost the same, or even more, for a variety of a la carte subscriptions than they are for their current cable... they'll just stay with their cable company.

Media companies are going to have to be aggressive with how cheap their subscriptions are if they want to convince someone to come over. That's how Netflix blew up. They used to be as cheap as $7 a month for unlimited streaming access.

that's true IF the channels do deals with Netflix/Roku/Hulu, etc. and you are paying one fee for access to all that content.

I would agree then.

but that's why this Disney/ESPN deal is bad. If they pull out of the deals with the streaming services and go direct to consumer, and it proves successful, how fast before AMC, HBO, FX, TBS, etc all do the same? one month? two?

then you are paying between 6-10/month for EVERY direct to consumer channel you want.

how is that going to keep cost lower?

right now, whether it's cable companies or streaming services, it's still all bundled.

this Disney thing is the first REAL step toward unbundling. and that will NOT be good for consumers.

It's good for a consumer that only wants a handful of channels and doesn't want 200-300 channels when they watch five consistently. It'll also be good for the remaining cable consumers because companies are realizing they can't keep jacking up prices while also bleeding customers or they're just hastening their death.

It will be hard for you and me DD because we have families that wants probably a combined 20-30 different channels of regular content. That will end up costing as much as the current cable bill anyways, so what's the point? For a single person or smaller family, this is perfect really. It's what they've always wanted.

Competition and options are always a good thing.

FCS football is for the students; FBS football is for the alumni

You have to recognize that premise to understand CAA football

(08-09-2017 01:51 PM)Dukeman2 Wrote:  FCS football is for the students; FBS football is for the alumni

You have to recognize that premise to understand CAA football

This is inaccurate on so many levels.

(08-09-2017 01:51 PM)Dukeman2 Wrote:  FCS football is for the students; FBS football is for the alumni

You have to recognize that premise to understand CAA football

COOL STORY

In the long run unbundling will cost us more for disproportionately less content. They know most folks will spend $50 - $150+ a month for entertainment and few will sell content for $5/mo for a channel here and $3/mo a channel there without getting a larger piece of that recurring revenue. So they're going to find a way to gouge us on either the access or the content, but either way you're not going to pay less "a la carte" unless you really do only want ESPN and the hallmark channel.

The good thing about a la carte will be increased competition. Right now most people have no more than two options for a cable provider - some only have one. If there's fifty different channels you can subscribe to individually, those channels will have to price themselves competitively if they want consumers to subscribe to their channel rather than someone else's.

Anytime you hear the phrase enhance or improve your customer experience watch out!!! As it rarely does!!

Brian