(11-08-2017 03:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not really certain what the structure is, but I believe ESPN is likely structured as a separate corporate entity that is owned by Disney. If ESPN went bankrupt, wouldn’t it be self contained? ESPN declares bankruptcy—wouldn’t only ESPN assets be part of the bankruptcy? Frankly, I know it works that way for individuals who own corporations, I’m not exactly sure how the corporate shield works for a corporation that owns another corporation.

Depends whether the contracts were with ESPN Inc or with Disney, or some subset of the Disney empire.

Even if ESPN only, there would have to be a mega crash for ESPN to go bankrupt, it's still highly profitable and can eat some pretty big losses.

I've been saying this for a while but I think the future is going to be 24+ member collegiate conglomerates built around the Big Ten and SEC as the cores. With control of that much content they can either go with direct to the consumer streaming or in the case of the SEC they could be a hallmark of the sports offerings on Disneyflix. The Big Ten group on the other hand would be free to play the other streaming services against eachother for the best offer they could get.

(11-08-2017 06:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I've been saying this for a while but I think the future is going to be 24+ member collegiate conglomerates built around the Big Ten and SEC as the cores. With control of that much content they can either go with direct to the consumer streaming or in the case of the SEC they could be a hallmark of the sports offerings on Disneyflix. The Big Ten group on the other hand would be free to play the other streaming services against eachother for the best offer they could get.

If you look at both ACC and SEC? They have teams that are not academics or big markets per say. Even Big 12 with TCU does not have great academic schools. The issue is on how to make money, and the competition that can give them money. I do not see 2 conglomerates of 2 conferences because you get weak schools that do water down the tv value. Look at the Temple Vs Notre Dame game a few years back? It put two undefeated teams on primetime that brought a lot of viewers. Throw Temple in, and you could get viewers.

PAC 12, Big 10 and Big 12 may need to look into the strong P5 schools in football and basketball to bring in new fresh blood that could draw attention. PAC 12 could add Boise State, and it could actually help viewership nationally. Boise State is the G5 darling for more than 10 years, and they do get a national following because of what they could do on the field. That is why many P5 officials think that several G5 schools and a school like North Dakota State could be in a P5 conference in the future.
UTSA might be something to look at as well since they do have the academics, and is on the rise in their football program in a short time. As it is to shut out any G5 schools could cut the money away from the P5 schools. That is why the P5 should not ignore the G5 schools because if they break away? The G5 schools could draw money away from them. There are a lot of fans for these schools, and you cut them out? The viewership could fall off for the P5 teams.

(11-08-2017 03:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not really certain what the structure is, but I believe ESPN is likely structured as a separate corporate entity that is owned by Disney. If ESPN went bankrupt, wouldn’t it be self contained? ESPN declares bankruptcy—wouldn’t only ESPN assets be part of the bankruptcy? Frankly, I know it works that way for individuals who own corporations, I’m not exactly sure how the corporate shield works for a corporation that owns another corporation.

Depends whether the contracts were with ESPN Inc or with Disney, or some subset of the Disney empire.

Even if ESPN only, there would have to be a mega crash for ESPN to go bankrupt, it's still highly profitable and can eat some pretty big losses.

To be clear, Im one who thinks the death of ESPN threads are way off base. I dont think ESPN is going anywhere anytime soon. I was just pointing out that every option has some degree of risk.

http://www.aei.org/publication/fortune-5...struction/

Keep in mind some of the on the record comments (from Disney/ESPN) have to be taken with a grain of salt, they are simply saying what they are supposed to say given the circumstances. These are the kind of statements many have heard when the company calls an employee meeting to let everyone know how awesome everything is yet a few years later things weren't really as awesome as led to believe. I'm sure many on here have been in some of those type meetings. Business fundamentals apply to sports media just like retail, manufacturing or whatever..it's no different...and keep in mind Disney is a public company. ESPN has had the good fortune of taxing every subscriber at an insane rate for all these years when in fact probably 90% or whatever never even watches sports...thats the issue right there! people done woke up LOL for every lost subscriber those dollars must be made up or the same numbers added at the same cost to streaming subscribers. For anyone to ignore loosing 13 million subscribers (at what they paid annually) and the trends still going south is just foolish..if you loose 13 million you need to pick those same numbers streaming..its not rocket science. I would assume add rates would take a hit as well, I guess. ESPN's primary business model was built on the masses paying for a service they didn't even watch.

I bet if this was some peoples money it wouldn't be pie in the sky. It's easy to opine and be a sports economist when you really have no skin in the game. It's just like anything else. The ESPN model faces real challenges....no one knows the ultimate outcome. I'm of the pinion that the 30 and under crowd not now and will never have the same intensity for sports as those above that age, i may be wrong but if that is the case thats the ultimate challenge.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...-main.aspx

(11-08-2017 10:23 PM)Bigdog731 Wrote:  Keep in mind some of the on the record comments (from Disney/ESPN) have to be taken with a grain of salt, they are simply saying what they are supposed to say given the circumstances. These are the kind of statements many have heard when the company calls an employee meeting to let everyone know how awesome everything is yet a few years later things weren't really as awesome as led to believe. I'm sure many on here have been in some of those type meetings. Business fundamentals apply to sports media just like retail, manufacturing or whatever..it's no different...and keep in mind Disney is a public company. ESPN has had the good fortune of taxing every subscriber at an insane rate for all these years when in fact probably 90% or whatever never even watches sports...thats the issue right there! people done woke up LOL for every lost subscriber those dollars must be made up or the same numbers added at the same cost to streaming subscribers. For anyone to ignore loosing 13 million subscribers (at what they paid annually) and the trends still going south is just foolish..if you loose 13 million you need to pick those same numbers streaming..its not rocket science. I would assume add rates would take a hit as well, I guess. ESPN's primary business model was built on the masses paying for a service they didn't even watch.

I bet if this was some peoples money it wouldn't be pie in the sky. It's easy to opine and be a sports economist when you really have no skin in the game. It's just like anything else. The ESPN model faces real challenges....no one knows the ultimate outcome. I'm of the pinion that the 30 and under crowd not now and will never have the same intensity for sports as those above that age, i may be wrong but if that is the case thats the ultimate challenge.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...-main.aspx

A couple of things to keep in mind. If people not watching sports are subsidizing ESPN, then people watching ESPN are also subsidizing the cable bundle networks they DONT watch on cable. The most watched events on TV are sporting events. When subscribers are asked what they most watch---the most popular category by far is sports....the next most popular is news, and its half as popular as sports. So while sports watchers are not the majority---they are the plurality.

When the cable bundle breaks---it seems to me that the networks offering the kind of content the biggest viewing block wants to see are going to be a lot better off than those with much smaller audiences. Furthermore, those that appeal to fewer will feel the pain of losing subsidies far more than those that have the largest audiences.

Just food for thought.

(11-08-2017 08:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not really certain what the structure is, but I believe ESPN is likely structured as a separate corporate entity that is owned by Disney. If ESPN went bankrupt, wouldn’t it be self contained? ESPN declares bankruptcy—wouldn’t only ESPN assets be part of the bankruptcy? Frankly, I know it works that way for individuals who own corporations, I’m not exactly sure how the corporate shield works for a corporation that owns another corporation.

Depends whether the contracts were with ESPN Inc or with Disney, or some subset of the Disney empire.

Even if ESPN only, there would have to be a mega crash for ESPN to go bankrupt, it's still highly profitable and can eat some pretty big losses.

To be clear, Im one who thinks the death of ESPN threads are way off base. I dont think ESPN is going anywhere anytime soon. I was just pointing out that every option has some degree of risk.

Better to have a deep pocket on the hook than be the pocket.

But, have the Big 10 hurt themselves by adding Rutgers?

This is the question that every conferences have to face. You have to look outside what school Presidents' wants. Academics have to be tossed out the window. A school bringing academics to the conference would not bring value when the school sucks at sports. Tulane, Rice, Buffalo, Rutgers, UConn and UMass right now suck in most sports. UMass' men's basketball and UConn's women's basketball are the exceptions. The question are these schools bring anything to the table? I say no. You have to look at schools that have been great at sports in the last 20 years that could bring value.

Boise State
BYU
Cincinnati
Memphis
UCF
USF
Temple
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
Villanova
Eastern Washington
Navy
Air Force
Hawaii
New Mexico
Appalachian State
San Diego State
Fresno State
UNR
Colorado State
Montana
Northern Iowa
Missouri State
Wichita State
Dayton
Toledo
Western Michigan
Central Michigan
Northern Illinois
Ohio
Bowling Green
Arkansas State
Stony Brook
James Madison
Jacksonville State
North Alabama
Gonzaga
East Carolina
Georgetown
St. John's, NY

Etc.

As we have seen, the P5 have fallen to teams not part of the P5, but they do bring competition and viewership to bring with them. I do not think people want to see sorry teams like Rutgers all the time, or UConn in football for that matter. As we have seen in the tournaments for men's basketball,we have seen the Dakota schools knock off P5 schools. North Dakota State knocked off Oklahoma in the round of 64 a few years ago.

(11-09-2017 02:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  But, have the Big 10 hurt themselves by adding Rutgers?

Nope.

(11-09-2017 02:36 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  But, have the Big 10 hurt themselves by adding Rutgers?

Nope.

It has been and will be a win win. It's way more to it than the outcome of some early seasons football games. Cord cutters, nevers whatevers, Rutgers fits B1G just fine and it will be more obvious as time goes on. I lived next to Rutgers for over 10 years-- it fits B1G picture.

(11-09-2017 02:36 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  But, have the Big 10 hurt themselves by adding Rutgers?

Nope.

Would Missouri State be best off in the Big 12? I know their football sucks, but their basketball could rise even further than were they are at.