(04-26-2017 11:59 AM)geef Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:51 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  Too much Entertainment, Sports and POLITICAL Network vice Programming.

Or, simply people no longer buying cable subscriptions. ESPN is not an anomaly in this.

This is what it's about. ESPN profit margins are dipping as people (1) Cut the Cord and (2) are bombarded with more and more options of good tv. Live Sports are still huge money makers, especially as the rare DVR proof advertising vehicle, but there is too much other good content to bother watching a lot of the other ESPN stuff these days. Additionally, you can get your fill with online contact at your leisure.

ESPN just does not get enough return on the kind of people it is letting go. This is an economics decision and one where ESPN knows it must alter where it spends its money and where its income comes from to succeed at the level it has in the past. ESPN absolutely has the resources to continue to be a force if it does so in the right ways, but it's former model is becoming obsolete.

(04-26-2017 12:05 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:59 AM)geef Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:51 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  Too much Entertainment, Sports and POLITICAL Network vice Programming.

Or, simply people no longer buying cable subscriptions. ESPN is not an anomaly in this.

This is what it's about. ESPN profit margins are dipping as people (1) Cut the Cord and (2) are bombarded with more and more options of good tv. Live Sports are still huge money makers, especially as the rare DVR proof advertising vehicle, but there is too much other good content to bother watching a lot of the other ESPN stuff these days. Additionally, you can get your fill with online contact at your leisure.

ESPN just does not get enough return on the kind of people it is letting go. This is an economics decision and one where ESPN knows it must alter where it spends its money and where its income comes from to succeed at the level it has in the past. ESPN absolutely has the resources to continue to be a force if it does so in the right ways, but it's former model is becoming obsolete.

ESPN committed to long-term league broadcast contracts at the peak of the market. Too bad it was also at the crest of the subscriber wave. The only variable spending they have is for tallent. So, until the existing contacts end people have to go.

I'm surprised by the political issues people have brought up. I do not watch anything on ESPN other than games and possibly some of the NFL draft. Today there are so many other options for scores/highlights/opinions tailored to my exact interests. I assume the talking-head discussion programs are showing the political bias?

(04-26-2017 12:30 PM)Bearcat1010 Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:05 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:59 AM)geef Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:51 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  Too much Entertainment, Sports and POLITICAL Network vice Programming.

Or, simply people no longer buying cable subscriptions. ESPN is not an anomaly in this.

This is what it's about. ESPN profit margins are dipping as people (1) Cut the Cord and (2) are bombarded with more and more options of good tv. Live Sports are still huge money makers, especially as the rare DVR proof advertising vehicle, but there is too much other good content to bother watching a lot of the other ESPN stuff these days. Additionally, you can get your fill with online contact at your leisure.

ESPN just does not get enough return on the kind of people it is letting go. This is an economics decision and one where ESPN knows it must alter where it spends its money and where its income comes from to succeed at the level it has in the past. ESPN absolutely has the resources to continue to be a force if it does so in the right ways, but it's former model is becoming obsolete.

ESPN committed to long-term league broadcast contracts at the peak of the market. Too bad it was also at the crest of the subscriber wave. The only variable spending they have is for tallent. So, until the existing contacts end people have to go.

I'm surprised by the political issues people have brought up. I do not watch anything on ESPN other than games and possibly some of the NFL draft. Today there are so many other options for scores/highlights/opinions tailored to my exact interests. I assume the talking-head discussion programs are showing the political bias?

I think the long term contracts are far less of an issue than you think. They matter some because ESPN isn't getting the subscription numbers it once did, but they can still bank huge advertising dollars for lives sports because they are fairly DVR proof. The far bigger deal is ESPN used to draw way more viewers for it's non-live sports events and was able to make those huge revenue generators. This isn't happening anymore and ESPN has to reinvent a lot to compensate.

Huh, guess McMurphy didn't move the needle.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Does anybody still think the AAC is going to get more money per team in their next contract (if it is with ESPN)? I don't.

I wonder how much those shady sports streaming sites affect this. Seems that more and more people are using them without suffering any consequences and every time they get shut down, another one pops up in a week.

Not that I care. ESPN's demise is thoroughly entertaining to me.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

(04-26-2017 12:38 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  Does anybody still think the AAC is going to get more money per team in their next contract (if it is with ESPN)? I don't.

I have no idea. If their shift is more focus on live sports than the coverage of sports and personalities covering sports they certainly could. Again live sports and event television continue to be where the advertising dollars come in. This isn't as simple as ESPN cutting people because their profit margins aren't as good, it's about reinventing given the circumstances of the modern TV trends. If live sports is where the money is and ESPN sees valuing in paying for the AAC the money could certainly increase. ESPN decided the value in all of these reporters and personalities simply wasn't there.

Its ashame its always the good ones let go. Always happens in sports media. Keep the buffoons who spend 95% of their airtime being a buffoon.

I expect espn to continue its collapse. I just don't see how they can avoid it with the contracts that they have signed at this point. And that will have major impact on all sports including college sports. Take a look at some of the nba contracts out there. The numbers are insane for really mediocre players. That's espns doing.

They will continue to talk about anything other than sports as much as possible and they will continue to go further and further left because the morons in charge of espn are just like the morons in charge of newspapers. Let's be clear, kaepernick and micheal Sam etc are stories but espn pummels people with the coverage of topics like that to point of absurdity. So few people are tuning in for that type of coverage in fact they are tuning out because of it and espn decides to double down instead of getting back to what made it great.

(04-26-2017 12:43 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:38 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  Does anybody still think the AAC is going to get more money per team in their next contract (if it is with ESPN)? I don't.

I have no idea. If their shift is more focus on live sports than the coverage of sports and personalities covering sports they certainly could. Again live sports and event television continue to be where the advertising dollars come in. This isn't as simple as ESPN cutting people because their profit margins aren't as good, it's about reinventing given the circumstances of the modern TV trends. If live sports is where the money is and ESPN sees valuing in paying for the AAC the money could certainly increase. ESPN decided the value in all of these reporters and personalities simply wasn't there.

Maybe espn will be pay them more and have them play on Tuesday wednesdays and Thursday's. If aac leadership hasn't been looking to jump off the sinking ship they are even dumber than I thought.

Side point, the lack of advertising time in soccer is why I believe it hasn't really taken off. Why would espn care to show programming which they can't run a commercial for 45 straight minutes. That's their worst nightmare.

This should also be an eye opener to the P5 schools. I have a feeling they will see a pay cut next contract (Still will see a lot more than G5). The money is certainly not there like it was. I can see the AAC getting a little bump still as they bring in good ratings on the cheap. I think they paid the Big 12 so they can keep the American schools on the cheap and think they will bump the contract up some to keep them. Maybe double at best, so don't expect any crazy big money, but to get a few schools that have ratings better than half the P5 schools bring for 1/8th of the price and willing to give you programming on almost any night of the week is a big win.

The other day I turned on SportsNation and Kenyon Martin was offering his opinion of Rob Gronkowski's legacy. It was a nice microcosm of the dilemna the 4 letter network has found themselves in.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

(04-26-2017 11:33 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 10:52 AM)AeroCat Wrote:  Link

How does ESPN struggling affect realignment or the next AAC TV contract?

I've been bamboozled for awhile at the folks over at the conference board who think we are gonna get a payraise come next TV contract. The quality of play and addition of Wichita certainly warrant it, however, ESPN simply cannot afford to pay "big bucks" to another conference.

The exodus of subscribers is only going to make it worse next time around.

I agree with Geef, I'm thinking we may be the first conference to go the full streaming service route in some form, i.e. Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, or Hulu. I'm not exactly well versed in contract negotiations however, so I could be spewing BS.

I suspect that the "next" contract will likely be in the range of the current contract, but with a modest "bump." (Depending on whose figures you use, right now we're getting a base media deal of between $2-$4 MM/year...) The conference content does GO UP with Navy and Wichita State...those were good moves by the Conference to shore up it's negotiating position. But I agree with you that the money, by ESPN, simply isn't there. I also agree with BC#1 that you need a competing network to get into a "Bidding War" with, and barring NBC looking to supplement their Notre Dame deal on the main-line, I don't see any other likely networks. (If we're talking NBCSN/FS1/or CBSSN, and basically similar $$$ amounts, you have to weigh out the exposure you get from ESPN...and I can't see a second-banana offer from Fox or CBS being much more than the second-banana offer we have from ESPN...)

The issue with streaming platforms is PRODUCTION. The transmission is one thing, but the production values have to be weighed here too. From cameras, to mixing, to "on-the-air" call-crews...someone has to produce the product to be transmitted. Now, ESPN hasn't done much for us since the BE-football days, but you still have to find someone to produce the game if you want people to watch it.

That's one thing the Networks give you that isn't really easily replaced.

Their left wing slant is 100% why I rarely watch ESPN anymore. I tune in only when there is a live event on that I am specifically looking for, and I DVR the 30 for 30 series.
Otherwise, the continued left wing commentary by the on-air talent, and their quick silencing of any on-air talent who voice conservative views has made me strongly dislike them as a network.

Make sports political and you can count on losing a good portion of the viewers who don't share the same political opinions.

(04-26-2017 12:47 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  Side point, the lack of advertising time in soccer is why I believe it hasn't really taken off. Why would espn care to show programming which they can't run a commercial for 45 straight minutes. That's their worst nightmare.

ESPN would kill for EPL rights. The issue is that the EPL often conflicts with its current content. The thing that kills ESPN is the lack of content to air on television. The lack of live sports is the reason we get a bunch of talking heads going over the same subject for hours. The EPL would give ESPN almost year round sports for Saturday, and Sunday mornings between 7:30am-1:30pm. The issue is this would conflict with the Lee Corso Kickoff Show and the NFL kickoff shows.

Too political, and allowing Lavar Ball to have a voice.. 2 reasons that explain why ESPN is no longer most peoples gray noise when working around the house..

They kept Rovell and dropped multiple people who provide things other than retweets, or blatantly stealing others tweets.. Great Job ESPN..

It's going to end up being the sports version of MTV more than it already is.

They need to bring back the early 80's and get rid of all the stupid analyst and debate shows and use Australian rules football as no cost no production program filler.

(04-26-2017 12:55 PM)namrag Wrote:  Their left wing slant is 100% why I rarely watch ESPN anymore. I tune in only when there is a live event on that I am specifically looking for, and I DVR the 30 for 30 series.
Otherwise, the continued left wing commentary by the on-air talent, and their quick silencing of any on-air talent who voice conservative views has made me strongly dislike them as a network.

Make sports political and you can count on losing a good portion of the viewers who don't share the same political opinions.

i am of the same mind. i have been pleasantly surprised how easy it has been to let go of ESPN. not just their liberal slant ( odious), but their lack of interesting content.

I'm not sure anything could "sound" more Cincinnati than thinking ESPN is "too liberal."

And Jamele Hill remains employed. ESPN just doesn't get it. And why in the world isn't their President or any of the executives on the chopping block?