(04-02-2018 10:51 PM)sctvman Wrote: Yep. Some of the stuff they put on ESPN3 now moving to ESPN+ is stuff that maybe a couple of hundred viewers watch. The Olympic sports from smaller leagues, the low-level basketball.
ESPN+ is adding extra golf coverage (which you pay for now additionally), plus boxing, rugby, additional courts of tennis majors (which was on ESPN3), and other stuff.
$5 a month is cheap compared to CUSA charging $6.99 to watch any non-TV game and getting a terrible product that freezes.
I don't think so.
Look again at what ESPN says will be there.
One MLB game per day, one NHL game per day. This coming from the inventory of BAM Tech subscription content.
All the MLS out-of-market pay content plus in-market for Chicago.
Golf from pay service.
Some boxing basically the stuff that isn't driving PPV but some better matches with some throwaway content.
Rugby and cricket that is mostly PPV or subscription now.
In 2015 AState games averaged 21,800 viewers per game online not counting the Missouri game which drew 137,000 viewers.
The ESPN+ focus is going to be content that people will pay for.
The last weekend of football might see some games that don't impact the conference race on ESPN3, the games that impact who plays the title game will be on ESPN.
Makes no sense to try to monetize the junk on ESPN+ while dumping the games that have more interest to ESPN3 where there is basically no revenue at all.
Why would you want to teach viewers that the best games from the Sun Belt or MAC are the "free service" while the games that feature the dogs of the conference are on ESPN+?
Makes no sense to have a regular season Loyola vs SIU game on ESPN3 while Evansville and Valpo are on ESPN+, if you want subscribers, you do exactly the opposite.