(02-28-2017 07:49 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  So you have the cost for internet then the $35 for youtubeTV and on and on until next thing you know your spending even more than now

No, you had internet when you had cable or satellite. Its a wash.

(03-01-2017 09:25 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 08:37 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Doesn't Raycom still hold those rights for the ACC?

Raycom continues to hold rights for ACC games through the 2018-19 season. Their sublicensing agreement with ESPN has been bought out, although terms have never been announced. The channel lineup listed includes ESPN3, which suggests that this package will included telecast of Raycom games on WatchESPN outside of Raycom's blackout areas (where I live, for instance, I get the Raycom package since no local channel carries it, but not the RSN package because that package is available on cable from NESN.)

That's the part that doesn't' make sense about the ACCN. This same content that Raycom owns for pennies is supposedly going to bring in hundreds of millions per year to ESPN and the AAC schools.

ESPN was going to have to pay the ACC $45 million more per year if they didn't start the ACC Network under their contract. So, ESPN was looking at paying $45 million more per year for literally nothing extra, which made starting the ACC Network appear more enticing (where they at least have a chance to make more on additional revenue streams with a new network).

Here's the interesting thing:

- cable and DBS technology works great! Very reliable, and the infrastructure is there.

- streaming, right now at least, is actually an inferior method of delivering exactly the same content (you can make arguments about the interfaces of streaming devices and services being "better", but that is a side discussion at best)


So why are people switching from cable/DBS to DirecTV Now and YouTubeTV? Basically, to go from paying $50-100/mo for a package of TV channels to paying $35/mo for a smaller package of TV channels, plus the smaller side benefit of replacing a cable/sat box with a Roku, Apple TV, or even in some cases the TV now has this technology built-in (Roku, in particular, I've seen).


That's literally all we're talking about here. People are that cheap. (and/or that ideological)



If cable/sat co.'s would've simply realized this and negotiated with content creators to reduce the size of the channel bundle and thus reduce its cost down to options of $25, $35, $45/mo .... none of this streaming stuff is even in existence right now.




As soon as Sling came out, I knew this was going to happen. And I guarantee you some analysts at Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DirecTV, etc knew it too. But old execs were stuck in "naw ... it's just a fad, and Sling will prove it when it fails to meet revenue".

Now we're pretty much all but locked into a race to the bottom to completely trash all this cable/sat infrastructure we've built up over the last 10 years (modernized for HDTV), so that we can put all this data traffic onto the internet instead.

wow, what a deal.

(03-01-2017 11:23 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Sure, end user internet traffic over mobile networks might go from 3% to 5% over the next 10 years.

I can pull numbers out my arse too.

End user traffic over the mobile networks will increase between 300% to 500% in the next 10 years.

In reality none of us know what will happen in 10 years.

Who knows what the numbers will be. No one knows. Maybe the cable pessimists will be correct. Maybe the cable optimists will be correct.

However, the one thing that we do know in 10 years is that sports programs will still be live and exclusive. I believe a lot of people are still WAAAAAAY underestimating how valuable that type of programming is regardless of whether the cable bundle survives or not. There is literally nothing on the entertainment spectrum that combines the need to watching a program live (as opposed to time shifted on-demand) with exclusivity (as opposed to being able to see the same program on Netflix, Hulu or other platforms) on such a large and repeatable scale. Individual events like The Oscars might provide that live content on certain evenings, but they're not frequent enough to power channels throughout the year. News programming is live and constant, but it's also commoditized and non-exclusive. Who knows if people will still be watching even the most popular shows like The Walking Dead in 10 years, but it's a fairly good bet that people will still want to watch SEC and Big Ten football in 10 years. These are all reasons why ESPN has been able to charge so much money for subscribers in the first place.

And once again, it's NOT going to be the NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 conferences that are going to suffer in the changing environment. They're going to make money even if the underlying cable model crashes in the same way that Taylor Swift and Adele still make monster amounts of money despite the fact that the underlying music sales model totally crashed even worse than what's projected for cable: they're the big brand names that will endure and make money regardless of the system. You see the same thing with movies: the massive Star Wars, Marvel and Disney Princess movies continue to make tons of money despite movie ticket sales having had a precipitous decline over the past 20 years even worse than cable, too. Instead, it's the mid-tier players (the G5 conferences and MLS-type leagues of the world) that will get pummeled just as the next tier musicians and mid-budget movies have gotten slashed.

The big brands survive and thrive in any system. We have seen it already with music and movies and we'll see it again with sports. So, anyone thinking that there's going to be schadenfreude for the P5 conferences isn't looking at how the history of the Internet has impacted other entertainment mediums. The biggest brands actually have even MORE *relative* importance today than they did 20 years ago (where mid-level musicians and movies could make money in a way that they cannot do so today).

TLDR: S**t rolls downhill in the entertainment business (including the sports business). Always remember that fact.

Very true.

People who love to attack ESPN, and predict doom for the network, also love to pretend that doom can be leveraged to drag down the P5 with it.

Nope.


Very worst case: the Big Ten (et al) will just direct distribute to consumers. They have the content that consumers demand. They can charge top dollar for that content, and top dollar to advertisers, to make up the difference with the lost ability to charge every subscriber of the channel bundle the same amount.

I don't care anymore what the money is as long as I get to see my teams play, preferably on Saturdays.

(03-01-2017 02:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:25 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 08:37 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Doesn't Raycom still hold those rights for the ACC?

Raycom continues to hold rights for ACC games through the 2018-19 season. Their sublicensing agreement with ESPN has been bought out, although terms have never been announced. The channel lineup listed includes ESPN3, which suggests that this package will included telecast of Raycom games on WatchESPN outside of Raycom's blackout areas (where I live, for instance, I get the Raycom package since no local channel carries it, but not the RSN package because that package is available on cable from NESN.)

That's the part that doesn't' make sense about the ACCN. This same content that Raycom owns for pennies is supposedly going to bring in hundreds of millions per year to ESPN and the AAC schools.

ESPN was going to have to pay the ACC $45 million more per year if they didn't start the ACC Network under their contract. So, ESPN was looking at paying $45 million more per year for literally nothing extra, which made starting the ACC Network appear more enticing (where they at least have a chance to make more on additional revenue streams with a new network).

Certainly an interesting set of circumstances.

At the end of the day Raycom had that same content and it wasn't worth anywhere near the numbers being thrown around now. I guess we will see how well ESPN can polish the content to increase its' value.

(03-01-2017 02:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  And once again, it's NOT going to be the NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 conferences that are going to suffer in the changing environment. . . . Instead, it's the mid-tier players (the G5 conferences and MLS-type leagues of the world) that will get pummeled just as the next tier musicians and mid-budget movies have gotten slashed.

The P5 conferences are not on the same level of TV revenue as NFL, NBA, and MLB. They're "tweeners", along with the NHL, between NFL/NBA/MLB and other sports. We like to think the market for CFB on TV will always get richer and richer, but it's possible that continued competition for NFL/NBA/MLB content will eat up more of the revenue as the total TV money stagnates and that the P5 and NHL will get squeezed by that. It's already possible that CFB will become more like NHL in that there will be a huge disparity in popularity of the sport between different regions of the USA, which would put a ceiling on CFB's national TV value just like the NHL's.

Except you know very well that the P5 aren't a block. There is no rule requiring every P5 to make the same TV money.

So let the PAC get squeezed, then. The Big Ten won't.

YouTube's package isn't about cord-cutting. It's just changing who debits your bank account each month.

With cable and satellite you pay for the pipe and the content with the same charge.
With YouTube, Sling, Sony, etc., you pay one provider for the pipe and one for the content.

Notice they all seem to be signing up ESPN. So basically if you want to make it in the space the market research is telling the online packager that they have to cough up the money to ESPN.

The only revolution here is that the providers of the pipes are going to start charging more to use the pipe. ATT is charging more if you top a terabyte, the cell providers are offering unlimited that throttles at 22gb unless your content provider pays them to keep their content from counting.

Don't spend all your savings before you see if they exist.

(03-01-2017 03:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 02:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  And once again, it's NOT going to be the NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 conferences that are going to suffer in the changing environment. . . . Instead, it's the mid-tier players (the G5 conferences and MLS-type leagues of the world) that will get pummeled just as the next tier musicians and mid-budget movies have gotten slashed.

The P5 conferences are not on the same level of TV revenue as NFL, NBA, and MLB. They're "tweeners", along with the NHL, between NFL/NBA/MLB and other sports. We like to think the market for CFB on TV will always get richer and richer, but it's possible that continued competition for NFL/NBA/MLB content will eat up more of the revenue as the total TV money stagnates and that the P5 and NHL will get squeezed by that. It's already possible that CFB will become more like NHL in that there will be a huge disparity in popularity of the sport between different regions of the USA, which would put a ceiling on CFB's national TV value just like the NHL's.

This is already the case. Only a few states can get 75k people to show up for college FB games on a regular basis. They all pretty much touch each other and none are in the Pacific and Mountain time zone or the highly populated NE part of the country.

(03-01-2017 03:37 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 02:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  And once again, it's NOT going to be the NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 conferences that are going to suffer in the changing environment. . . . Instead, it's the mid-tier players (the G5 conferences and MLS-type leagues of the world) that will get pummeled just as the next tier musicians and mid-budget movies have gotten slashed.

The P5 conferences are not on the same level of TV revenue as NFL, NBA, and MLB. They're "tweeners", along with the NHL, between NFL/NBA/MLB and other sports. We like to think the market for CFB on TV will always get richer and richer, but it's possible that continued competition for NFL/NBA/MLB content will eat up more of the revenue as the total TV money stagnates and that the P5 and NHL will get squeezed by that. It's already possible that CFB will become more like NHL in that there will be a huge disparity in popularity of the sport between different regions of the USA, which would put a ceiling on CFB's national TV value just like the NHL's.

This is already the case. Only a few states can get 75k people to show up for college FB games on a regular basis. They all pretty much touch each other and none are in the Pacific and Mountain time zone or the highly populated NE part of the country.

USC and UCLA haven't quite mastered the "regular basis" part. They both can top 75k when they are rolling but sustaining is another beast all together.

This is frustrating. It's so close but it doesn't include some important things.



Missing:
- ESPN Goal Line
- Fox Sports RSN (Charlotte)
- Sports South
- Sports South RSN (Charlotte)
- Cartoon Network (Adult Swim)
- Comedy Central



If it included those channels, and I could rig a way for it to DVR, I'd pull the plug on cable TV. And save about $30-40/mo.

(03-01-2017 03:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 02:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  And once again, it's NOT going to be the NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 conferences that are going to suffer in the changing environment. . . . Instead, it's the mid-tier players (the G5 conferences and MLS-type leagues of the world) that will get pummeled just as the next tier musicians and mid-budget movies have gotten slashed.

The P5 conferences are not on the same level of TV revenue as NFL, NBA, and MLB. They're "tweeners", along with the NHL, between NFL/NBA/MLB and other sports. We like to think the market for CFB on TV will always get richer and richer, but it's possible that continued competition for NFL/NBA/MLB content will eat up more of the revenue as the total TV money stagnates and that the P5 and NHL will get squeezed by that. It's already possible that CFB will become more like NHL in that there will be a huge disparity in popularity of the sport between different regions of the USA, which would put a ceiling on CFB's national TV value just like the NHL's.

I'd beg to differ. College football consistently draws the highest regular season ratings of any sport (college or pro) besides the NFL (which is on an entirely different level than everyone else) and it takes a Game 7 in the World Series or NBA Finals for those properties to obtain ratings as large as the CFP national championship game. If college football is supposedly a regional sport, then freaking MLB is a regional sport (with its fans concentrated in the Northeast, Midwest and a handful of other markets). I just don't see that being the case at all when looking at the ratings data and the fact that even "weak" college football markets still draw pretty substantial audiences for big games compared to any non-NFL sport.

Plus, remember that you need to look at the all of the P5 conference revenues in the *aggregate* when compared to the NBA and MLB. (Once again, the NFL is a separate beast.) Sure, the Big Ten alone doesn't make as much as the NBA, but when you look at the power conference structure as a whole, they're flush with TV revenue. When you put the TV contracts of all of the P5 leagues together plus add on the fact that they receive a supermajority of the CFP revenue plus add on the fact that they receive the majority of NCAA Tournament revenue and they are very much at least in the same tier as the NBA and MLB... and note that they make all of this money when they don't have to even pay their players (yet). The P5 are way far ahead of the NHL in terms of revenue and mindshare for sure.

(03-01-2017 03:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:37 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 02:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  And once again, it's NOT going to be the NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 conferences that are going to suffer in the changing environment. . . . Instead, it's the mid-tier players (the G5 conferences and MLS-type leagues of the world) that will get pummeled just as the next tier musicians and mid-budget movies have gotten slashed.

The P5 conferences are not on the same level of TV revenue as NFL, NBA, and MLB. They're "tweeners", along with the NHL, between NFL/NBA/MLB and other sports. We like to think the market for CFB on TV will always get richer and richer, but it's possible that continued competition for NFL/NBA/MLB content will eat up more of the revenue as the total TV money stagnates and that the P5 and NHL will get squeezed by that. It's already possible that CFB will become more like NHL in that there will be a huge disparity in popularity of the sport between different regions of the USA, which would put a ceiling on CFB's national TV value just like the NHL's.

This is already the case. Only a few states can get 75k people to show up for college FB games on a regular basis. They all pretty much touch each other and none are in the Pacific and Mountain time zone or the highly populated NE part of the country.

USC and UCLA haven't quite mastered the "regular basis" part. They both can top 75k when they are rolling but sustaining is another beast all together.

Going to be tough for either to maintain that as once they start losing the fan support goes down quickly.

And Nebraska will sell out every game the next decade, just like the last 5-6. Won't matter the record.

People are just different.

(03-01-2017 03:37 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 02:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  And once again, it's NOT going to be the NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 conferences that are going to suffer in the changing environment. . . . Instead, it's the mid-tier players (the G5 conferences and MLS-type leagues of the world) that will get pummeled just as the next tier musicians and mid-budget movies have gotten slashed.

The P5 conferences are not on the same level of TV revenue as NFL, NBA, and MLB. They're "tweeners", along with the NHL, between NFL/NBA/MLB and other sports. We like to think the market for CFB on TV will always get richer and richer, but it's possible that continued competition for NFL/NBA/MLB content will eat up more of the revenue as the total TV money stagnates and that the P5 and NHL will get squeezed by that. It's already possible that CFB will become more like NHL in that there will be a huge disparity in popularity of the sport between different regions of the USA, which would put a ceiling on CFB's national TV value just like the NHL's.

This is already the case. Only a few states can get 75k people to show up for college FB games on a regular basis. They all pretty much touch each other and none are in the Pacific and Mountain time zone or the highly populated NE part of the country.

There are places with bad NBA and MLB attendance, too. However, I don't see many people trying to claim that those are regional sports. Once again, the TV ratings data bear out pretty consistently that college football has the highest ratings of any non-NFL sport in America (and it's not just the South driving those numbers).

(03-01-2017 03:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  YouTube's package isn't about cord-cutting. It's just changing who debits your bank account each month.

Well, it is about saving a small, non-life changing amount of money, too.

But yes, the spirit of your post is correct.

(03-01-2017 04:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If it included those channels, and I could rig a way for it to DVR, I'd pull the plug on cable TV.

All for the non-life changing savings of $360-$480 per year! Wow!

And for all that you get:
- mostly the same channels, though missing some good ones with smaller viewership
- inferior technology
- no DVR ability and limited to zero on-Demand library for sports (ie, if you don't watch it live or by the next day, you probably can never view it)

(03-01-2017 04:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  All for the non-life changing savings of $360-$480 per year! Wow!

And for all that you get:
- mostly the same channels, though missing some good ones with smaller viewership
- inferior technology
- no DVR ability and limited to zero on-Demand library for sports (ie, if you don't watch it live or by the next day, you probably can never view it)

Due to DSV and other bandwidth trickery going on with cable, I don't think I'd call it inferior technology. And I wouldn't say I can't DVR it. It's a question only of how much energy I'd need to invest to do so. I run MythTV as my DVR. If you can see it ... you can save it with hardware capture cards. I'm capturing cable TV at FULL BROADCAST QUALITY with 5.1 surround on MythTV in Linux. Just because you can't go to a store and buy a dummy box and press a button to do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

(03-01-2017 04:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:37 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 02:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  And once again, it's NOT going to be the NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 conferences that are going to suffer in the changing environment. . . . Instead, it's the mid-tier players (the G5 conferences and MLS-type leagues of the world) that will get pummeled just as the next tier musicians and mid-budget movies have gotten slashed.

The P5 conferences are not on the same level of TV revenue as NFL, NBA, and MLB. They're "tweeners", along with the NHL, between NFL/NBA/MLB and other sports. We like to think the market for CFB on TV will always get richer and richer, but it's possible that continued competition for NFL/NBA/MLB content will eat up more of the revenue as the total TV money stagnates and that the P5 and NHL will get squeezed by that. It's already possible that CFB will become more like NHL in that there will be a huge disparity in popularity of the sport between different regions of the USA, which would put a ceiling on CFB's national TV value just like the NHL's.

This is already the case. Only a few states can get 75k people to show up for college FB games on a regular basis. They all pretty much touch each other and none are in the Pacific and Mountain time zone or the highly populated NE part of the country.

There are places with bad NBA and MLB attendance, too. However, I don't see many people trying to claim that those are regional sports. Once again, the TV ratings data bear out pretty consistently that college football has the highest ratings of any non-NFL sport in America (and it's not just the South driving those numbers).

I have no doubt that is true. I was simply pointing out that there are areas of the country which are highly populated but dont' necessarily have huge crowds for CFB games, which is also true.