(02-07-2019 08:37 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [quote='johnbragg' pid='15887894' dateline='1549509254']
[quote='RutgersGuy' pid='15887829' dateline='1549506912']
But the goal wasn't to be what ESPN was because thats unrealistic since they have had a 30+ year head start and a monopoly.
The goal was to be a "baby ESPN", pulling in $2, 3, 5 a month for FS1. That's the goal that's now out of reach, with cord-cutting eating into ESPN's revenues.
Quote:They can and are making money which is the goal and are growing every year.
Wait a minute, hold the phone. It's not clear at all that FS1 is making money. The plan was never for FS1 to be making money at this point--the idea was to buy enough sports rights to create a plausible "Jr ESPN" (check)--and then charge Jr ESPN subscriber fees to 100M subscribers across the country (not checked).
Quote:They already have sunk millions into TV rights on major properties.
On contracts that will, one day, expire. The question is what happens when those contracts do expire. In the last big round of negotiations, ESPN was printing so much money (mostly on subscriber fees) that Comcast and Fox were willing to gamble billions to build a Jr ESPN. That business logic falls apart as ESPN's subscriber revenues decline.
Quote:You took an analogy literally and tried to sound smart in the process. The execs at Pepsico are doing just fine in second place.
The second place isn't the problem. IT's the second place--
in a declining field.
Quote:FS1 will do the same. Just like ESPN Coke had a huge head start and no one will ever overtake them. That doesn't mean others can't make money in the same field and Fox has been doing just fine with FS1. They are a legit alternative channel to watch sports.
Which is fine, but that by itself is not going to motivate banks and equity markets to give New Fox money to hand over to leagues and conferences for TV rights.
Quote:This isn't NBCsports, CBSsports or early days of ESPN airing whatever they can get their hands on. MLB, B1G, Big XII, Big East, World Cup and WWE. Oh and they are still in the short term. It's year 5, in the TV world thats short term.
The point is, the overall conditions have changed dramatically since Year 1. In 2012, ESPN had 99 million subscribers. End of last year, they were around 86 million.
(02-08-2019 02:33 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: The best the AAC can do is package maybe one game a week of potential value. The question is, do the networks care?
I think the record of the past few years has shown that the AAC has around 20 games a year that can easily be shuffled into a rotation with P5 games.
An ESPN2 Saturday of
12:00 Oklahoma STate(6-3) vs Baylor (5-4),
3:30 Memphis (7-2) vs #23 Houston (8-1)
8:00 USC (8-1) vs Arizona (4-5)
doesn't raise any eyebrows.
I don't think ESPN can just slot in Georgia State (8-1) vs Troy (6-3) and not miss a beat. So there is value there to ESPN.
But.... (cont'd below)
(02-08-2019 03:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: How much would the best AAC game each week as a stand alone package be worth to NBC or CBS? Both of those networks have timeslots available on their flagship OTA channels and getting those timeslots would be ideal for AAC visibility.
I also don't think that MEmphis-Houston game stands up as part of a double-header with Alabama or Notre Dame. And that Memphis-Houston game is not a very attractive proposition on an island on NBC-SN or TNT. So being on ESPN/2/U/ABC or at least Fox/FS1 is valuable to the AAC. (I don't think Fox is a factor because they're pretty stocked up on CFB with the Big Ten, Big XII and PAC and only 2 big-boy channels to use, vs 4 for ESPN.)
So I think the AAC-ESPN partnership helps both sides. The question is, do both sides value the partnership in close to the same numbers? Will the AAC presidents accept what ESPN regards as a reasonable offer, or will they (especially UConn) go to market and shoot for the moon?