(01-31-2020 12:58 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Okay JR, here's something that I keep looking at, and I know you don't like criticism of ESPN or hearing about the NFL, so I will make this relevant to college sports, but the NFL is the only example I have of this: the NFL lost Los Angeles as a market for at least ten years, if not more.

21 seasons without an NFL team. The Rams played in SoCal in the 1994 season and then returned for the 2016 season.

(01-31-2020 12:58 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  LA residents showed indifference to having a team, but yet the NFL put a high priority on getting the LA market back.

I wouldn't say it was a high priority. For most of those 21 years the NFL discouraged teams from relocating to LA without a new stadium being built, and only approved it after Kroenke put the stadium project together and agreed that a second team could also play there.

(01-31-2020 12:58 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Now this is my question: how long is ESPN going to tolerate not having a monopoly in Los Angeles??

In college football, they'll tolerate it forever, because college football isn't the #1 TV sport in LA like it is in many places in the south.

I don't have all the ratings data at hand, but I'm pretty sure the most-watched sports team in the LA market is the Lakers, and ESPN hasn't bothered to get any more of their games than they already have.

(01-31-2020 08:35 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.

Definitely true.

This is not true. The TV ratings (and attendance) for basketball versus football are at roughly the same ratio they were decades ago. For example, the average 1st round NCAA tourney game got higher ratings in 2019 the average bowl game.

What HAS changed is that the postseason is worth much more than it used to be in both sports.

And in basketball, the postseason is owned by the NCAA. The NCAA got $867 million for the NCAA tourney in 2019 and only paid out $169 million to tournament teams (and almost 20% of that is to 1-bid conferences that bring few eyeballs).

The schools & conferences that create basketball value only get 1/6th of the value of their postseason TV rights, while football conferences get to keep 100%.

(01-31-2020 12:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  ACC schools have been behind SEC schools in revenue forever.
Anyone could look at average attendance numbers and realize that. The average ACC crowd is about 50,000 and the average SEC crowd is 80,000. Even with equal media income the average ACC school is $2-3 million behind their SEC counterparts per game ($21 Million per season on average) when you add in concessions, parking etc.
What is important is that we are not behind with our peers.

X, this post is a prime example of what drives fans of ACC football-first schools crazy.

First, you're essentially saying that a $50 million/year deficit is no worse than a $20 million one. Try running a business like that!

Then you try to sweep the whole thing under the rug by saying all that's important is "our peers". Do you have any idea how elitist that sounds?

Nevermind that UNC's definition of "peer" seems to depend on which sport we're discussing. I guess some posters here were right when they suggested that UNC fans won't "get it" until the ACC is relegated to also-ran in men's basketball (but by then it will be much, much too late).

It's one thing to say "we'll get through this" - that's being optimistic and determined.
It's another thing altogether to say "this is not a problem".

(01-31-2020 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 12:58 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 10:44 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Interesting , when Delaney started B10 network, everyone said that’s where the money would be.

And it was at the time. There is a somewhat complicated process that has been going on with each realignment as each one has had different carrots dangled.

In 1989-92 the whole concept of having to have a strong regional draw and the footprint size of the conference being important to revenue got the ball rolling. It was what he networks had to work with since the OU/UGa lawsuit opened it up. Nobody but ABC had had any experience with how the ratings would work and even then ABC just had the only game every week so there was nothing to measure marketing against. Size of a conferences seemed to be as good as any so that's what they decided to base revenue upon.

Because of that everyone looked to push out their boundaries and with the SWC dying (2 state footprint and SMU on the death penalty) Arkansas was ready for a move to the SEC. The Big 8 and 4 from the SWC hoped expanding a 5 state footprint into 6 with Texas would be enough. It wasn't. The ACC had taken Ga Tech in '78 just because they were a good fit and added Florida State for entrance into a growing market. Penn State was solid for the Big 10 and the Arizona schools had been a good add for the PAC.

In 2010 the networks had a lot more data and saw a way to use it to their advantage so they stressed spreading the footprint again, but mostly to break up schools within large states so that they could break the leverage that a single conference might have with such holdings. It worked out to keep Florida State away from the SEC so next they went after North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. The big plans were for A&M, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to grow the footprint of the SEC, but in each case it would be breaking leverage 1 conference had over a group of schools in a conference. That way the ad revenue paid out to the conferences could justifiably be less than the network was actually getting for holding all of the properties in a state but not having 1 conference also holding the same leverage.

Carolina and Virginia resisted. A&M came on board giving ESPN another in with Texas. Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska left for more stable pastures. Conference networks were the reward for the expansion.

Now they are using national rankings and high content games as the lure for expansion in order to collect brands within a particular conference. It is why FOX will go after Texas and Oklahoma for the Big 10 and ESPN will do the same for the SEC.

If successful the networks would probably push for a couple of leagues instead of 5 P conferences. Conferences will resist but with few national football brands in the ACC and Big 12 and with the PAC isolated without a healthy big brand the pay gap is about to jump to a chasm. Those who choose not move by 2025 will be forced to spend about a decade before they get another chance. It will be a decade where the recalcitrant will lose between 200 million to 300 million if they don't move. That's a huge amount to resist.

If the networks were forward thinking they would make two healthy and competitive conferences out of the smaller three and make some niche moves to finish out the Big 10 and SEC. I just sincerely doubt that it works out that way.

Okay JR, here's something that I keep looking at, and I know you don't like criticism of ESPN or hearing about the NFL, so I will make this relevant to college sports, but the NFL is the only example I have of this: the NFL lost Los Angeles as a market for at least ten years, if not more. LA residents showed indifference to having a team, but yet the NFL put a high priority on getting the LA market back. Now this is my question: how long is ESPN going to tolerate not having a monopoly in Los Angeles?? How long will it be before ESPN tells the SEC, hey we will give you crazy $$'s if you give Southern California and UCLA an invitation?? Also, ESPN's parent corporation Disney is based in.... wait for it.....Los Angeles. Isn't ESPN embarrassed that they really don't have a monopoly of a property in their backyard, so to speak??

If ESPN wants that they will buy out the whole Big 12 contract and add those schools to the Big 12 because nobody in the SEC and nobody at those two California schools would consider the proposition you suggest. But adding U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and B.Y.U. to the Big 12 makes money and sense. Let the Big 10 add Stanford and California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington and look East for one more.

But in order to do that the PAC schools would have to want to separate. They don't.

But this is not a discussion of the SEC Revenue. This is a general speculation about realignment.

No one in the SEC and it is currently aligned would. I think Texas would want that in the SEC eventually if they joine, especially if the plan is to have only two autobid leagues. Yes, I can see the rest of the SEC being opposed to this, but in a pod set up, the only teams really being affected would be Texas and whoever else likes playing in LA. Auburn would probably make one trip every four years out there if that, and I hear Auburn has alumni out there anyway, so why not??

(01-31-2020 02:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:35 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.

Definitely true.

This is not true. The TV ratings (and attendance) for basketball versus football are at roughly the same ratio they were decades ago. For example, the average 1st round NCAA tourney game got higher ratings in 2019 the average bowl game.

What HAS changed is that the postseason is worth much more than it used to be in both sports.

And in basketball, the postseason is owned by the NCAA. The NCAA got $867 million for the NCAA tourney in 2019 and only paid out $169 million to tournament teams (and almost 20% of that is to 1-bid conferences that bring few eyeballs).

The schools & conferences that create basketball value only get 1/6th of the value of their postseason TV rights, while football conferences get to keep 100%.

Yep. To put this into real world numbers, when the ACC earned 22 NCAA units that figures to be worth at least $36 million over 6 years - but if the NCAA paid 6/6ths instead of 1/6th, it would be worth $226 million!

(01-31-2020 02:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 02:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:35 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.

Definitely true.

This is not true. The TV ratings (and attendance) for basketball versus football are at roughly the same ratio they were decades ago. For example, the average 1st round NCAA tourney game got higher ratings in 2019 the average bowl game.

What HAS changed is that the postseason is worth much more than it used to be in both sports.

And in basketball, the postseason is owned by the NCAA. The NCAA got $867 million for the NCAA tourney in 2019 and only paid out $169 million to tournament teams (and almost 20% of that is to 1-bid conferences that bring few eyeballs).

The schools & conferences that create basketball value only get 1/6th of the value of their postseason TV rights, while football conferences get to keep 100%.

Yep. To put this into real world numbers, when the ACC earned 22 NCAA units that figures to be worth at least $36 million over 6 years - but if the NCAA paid 6/6ths instead of 1/6th, it would be worth $226 million!

The NCAA is now rolling close to 100 million annually into their endowment funds which together are now worth well over 1 Billion and they do that by only paying 1/6th a year and making interest on the other 5/6ths and rolling that interest and "their share" into the endowment which grows their bureaucracy. They are stealing the basketball schools blind.

(01-31-2020 02:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:35 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.

Definitely true.

This is not true. The TV ratings (and attendance) for basketball versus football are at roughly the same ratio they were decades ago. For example, the average 1st round NCAA tourney game got higher ratings in 2019 the average bowl game.

What HAS changed is that the postseason is worth much more than it used to be in both sports.

And in basketball, the postseason is owned by the NCAA.[/b] The NCAA got $867 million for the NCAA tourney in 2019 and only paid out $169 million to tournament teams (and almost 20% of that is to 1-bid conferences that bring few eyeballs).

The schools & conferences that create basketball value only get 1/6th of the value of their postseason TV rights, while football conferences get to keep 100%.

And, in college basketball, the postseason is a far higher percentage of the sport's TV value than it is in college football.

That means the basketball programs that draw TV viewers and go deep in the NCAA tournament are even more shortchanged, because what they get to keep has less value -- the CBB regular season has, at most, one-fourth the TV value of the CFB regular season.

(01-31-2020 02:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Yep. To put this into real world numbers, when the ACC earned 22 NCAA units that figures to be worth at least $36 million over 6 years - but if the NCAA paid 6/6ths instead of 1/6th, it would be worth $226 million!

Think about it in terms of individual teams, if teams got to keep all of their own "units". Kentucky gets shortchanged on basketball postseason money, but they get a fat share of all of the SEC football TV revenue. Gonzaga (obviously) gets no football revenue, and gets only one-sixth of the value of their 16 units from the last 5 NCAA tournaments. Gonzaga alone is "earning" about $130 million more from the tournament over the last 5 seasons than their conference gets back from the NCAA, without the SEC football revenue to balance it out.

(01-31-2020 03:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 02:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 02:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:35 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.

Definitely true.

This is not true. The TV ratings (and attendance) for basketball versus football are at roughly the same ratio they were decades ago. For example, the average 1st round NCAA tourney game got higher ratings in 2019 the average bowl game.

What HAS changed is that the postseason is worth much more than it used to be in both sports.

And in basketball, the postseason is owned by the NCAA. The NCAA got $867 million for the NCAA tourney in 2019 and only paid out $169 million to tournament teams (and almost 20% of that is to 1-bid conferences that bring few eyeballs).

The schools & conferences that create basketball value only get 1/6th of the value of their postseason TV rights, while football conferences get to keep 100%.

Yep. To put this into real world numbers, when the ACC earned 22 NCAA units that figures to be worth at least $36 million over 6 years - but if the NCAA paid 6/6ths instead of 1/6th, it would be worth $226 million!

The NCAA is now rolling close to 100 million annually into their endowment funds which together are now worth well over 1 Billion and they do that by only paying 1/6th a year and making interest on the other 5/6ths and rolling that interest and "their share" into the endowment which grows their bureaucracy. They are stealing the basketball schools blind.

Just to be clear, I don't mean 1/6th as in spread over 6 years... I mean 1/36th per year for 6 years = 1/6th. The NCAA doesn't just earn interest on the other 5/6ths - they keep it!

(01-31-2020 03:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 03:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 02:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 02:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:35 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Definitely true.

This is not true. The TV ratings (and attendance) for basketball versus football are at roughly the same ratio they were decades ago. For example, the average 1st round NCAA tourney game got higher ratings in 2019 the average bowl game.

What HAS changed is that the postseason is worth much more than it used to be in both sports.

And in basketball, the postseason is owned by the NCAA. The NCAA got $867 million for the NCAA tourney in 2019 and only paid out $169 million to tournament teams (and almost 20% of that is to 1-bid conferences that bring few eyeballs).

The schools & conferences that create basketball value only get 1/6th of the value of their postseason TV rights, while football conferences get to keep 100%.

Yep. To put this into real world numbers, when the ACC earned 22 NCAA units that figures to be worth at least $36 million over 6 years - but if the NCAA paid 6/6ths instead of 1/6th, it would be worth $226 million!

The NCAA is now rolling close to 100 million annually into their endowment funds which together are now worth well over 1 Billion and they do that by only paying 1/6th a year and making interest on the other 5/6ths and rolling that interest and "their share" into the endowment which grows their bureaucracy. They are stealing the basketball schools blind.

Just to be clear, I don't mean 1/6th as in spread over 6 years... I mean 1/36th per year for 6 years = 1/6th. The NCAA doesn't just earn interest on the other 5/6ths - they keep it!

I was focused, and have been, on dividing the 1 share over six years so that's the 1/6th I'm talking about. Of course their keeping 100's of millions. Last year the network(s) paid the NCAA 1 billion to cover the tourney. So Auburn which made the final four will see a pittance over the next six years. Can you imagine how a Butler feels? They are having a Forest Gump moment, "They say it's a million dollar wound, but the government (NCAA) must keep that money 'cause I haven't seen a penny of it!" We need to wrest that contract control away from the NCAA.

What's a tourney cred worth right now? The last I checked it was 2.5 million per credit. Well there are 67 total games in the current bracket so that's 67 x 2.5 million that's 167.5 million out of 1 billion paid out to the schools. And then they take 6 years to pay that out giving them the equivalent of 5 full years worth of interest on tournament money before it rolls into another cycle.

And yet we have oodles of idiots around here who defend the NCAA. They are bureaucratic thieves which dwarf the largess of the IRS by comparison.

(01-31-2020 12:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  With the SEC, ACC, AAC, and Texas locked into long term contracts, ESPN has secured enough quality inventory to continue to be dominant in collegiate sports broadcasting for at least until 2032.

As a fan of an ACC team, it's nice for you to know that your team's games will be available on ESPN channels. If you were an ACC athletic director, though, you would be realizing that between the length of the ACC contract and the big money of the new SEC contract, ESPN has locked the ACC into a long-term and gigantic financial disadvantage behind their geographic neighbors and competitors in the SEC. The other P5 conferences at least have a chance to improve their per-school media revenue in a few years -- they won't reach the SEC's level, might not even get that close, but they will increase their financial advantage over ACC members.

All that ESPN exposure has really allowed the ACC to dominate College Football.

(01-31-2020 02:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:35 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.

Definitely true.

This is not true. The TV ratings (and attendance) for basketball versus football are at roughly the same ratio they were decades ago. For example, the average 1st round NCAA tourney game got higher ratings in 2019 the average bowl game.

What HAS changed is that the postseason is worth much more than it used to be in both sports.

And in basketball, the postseason is owned by the NCAA. The NCAA got $867 million for the NCAA tourney in 2019 and only paid out $169 million to tournament teams (and almost 20% of that is to 1-bid conferences that bring few eyeballs).

The schools & conferences that create basketball value only get 1/6th of the value of their postseason TV rights, while football conferences get to keep 100%.

That is misleading. The NCAA uses a good chunk of the rest to pay for championships in all other sports, which are dominated by the P5 (31 of 37 championships won last year by P5 schools).

P5 schools get the lion's share of berths, home games, etc in those. So while the NCAA doesn't directly pay the P5 for these, the cost savings is substantial.

(01-31-2020 04:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 02:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:35 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.

Definitely true.

This is not true. The TV ratings (and attendance) for basketball versus football are at roughly the same ratio they were decades ago. For example, the average 1st round NCAA tourney game got higher ratings in 2019 the average bowl game.

What HAS changed is that the postseason is worth much more than it used to be in both sports.

And in basketball, the postseason is owned by the NCAA. The NCAA got $867 million for the NCAA tourney in 2019 and only paid out $169 million to tournament teams (and almost 20% of that is to 1-bid conferences that bring few eyeballs).

The schools & conferences that create basketball value only get 1/6th of the value of their postseason TV rights, while football conferences get to keep 100%.

That is misleading. The NCAA uses a good chunk of the rest to pay for championships in all other sports, which are dominated by the P5 (31 of 37 championships won last year by P5 schools).

P5 schools get the lion's share of berths, home games, etc in those. So while the NCAA doesn't directly pay the P5 for these, the cost savings is substantial.

Excuse me the lions share of the non profits fall upon the schools. The costs of putting on a championship is relatively miniscule in overhead compared to that footed by the schools offering those sports.

(01-31-2020 04:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 02:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:35 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.

Definitely true.

This is not true. The TV ratings (and attendance) for basketball versus football are at roughly the same ratio they were decades ago. For example, the average 1st round NCAA tourney game got higher ratings in 2019 the average bowl game.

What HAS changed is that the postseason is worth much more than it used to be in both sports.

And in basketball, the postseason is owned by the NCAA. The NCAA got $867 million for the NCAA tourney in 2019 and only paid out $169 million to tournament teams (and almost 20% of that is to 1-bid conferences that bring few eyeballs).

The schools & conferences that create basketball value only get 1/6th of the value of their postseason TV rights, while football conferences get to keep 100%.

That is misleading. The NCAA uses a good chunk of the rest to pay for championships in all other sports, which are dominated by the P5 (31 of 37 championships won last year by P5 schools).

P5 schools get the lion's share of berths, home games, etc in those. So while the NCAA doesn't directly pay the P5 for these, the cost savings is substantial.

P5 doesn't get any berths in Division II and III which are funded by the NCAA Division I bb tourney.

(01-31-2020 04:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 02:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:35 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.

Definitely true.

This is not true. The TV ratings (and attendance) for basketball versus football are at roughly the same ratio they were decades ago. For example, the average 1st round NCAA tourney game got higher ratings in 2019 the average bowl game.

What HAS changed is that the postseason is worth much more than it used to be in both sports.

And in basketball, the postseason is owned by the NCAA. The NCAA got $867 million for the NCAA tourney in 2019 and only paid out $169 million to tournament teams (and almost 20% of that is to 1-bid conferences that bring few eyeballs).

The schools & conferences that create basketball value only get 1/6th of the value of their postseason TV rights, while football conferences get to keep 100%.

That is misleading. The NCAA uses a good chunk of the rest to pay for championships in all other sports, which are dominated by the P5 (31 of 37 championships won last year by P5 schools).

P5 schools get the lion's share of berths, home games, etc in those. So while the NCAA doesn't directly pay the P5 for these, the cost savings is substantial.

There is a cost savings on paper for the cost of Division I tournaments, but that amount is small in comparison to the amount of March Madness revenue retained by the NCAA.

ESPN will eventually bankrupt themselves paying these huge amounts for conferences with all of this cord cutting going on. Let's be real, most p5 teams are just riding coattails of the historically good football schools for a good payday. All college football needs is two 14 team super conference's and the rest of the schools are irrelevant and not worth the pay.

(01-31-2020 02:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Yep. To put this into real world numbers, when the ACC earned 22 NCAA units that figures to be worth at least $36 million over 6 years - but if the NCAA paid 6/6ths instead of 1/6th, it would be worth $226 million!

Yes, but surely it is the case that if suddenly the P5 conferences gained control over the basketball tournament like they control the CFP, the ACC wouldn't bet getting that kind of money, or at least not much more than anyone else is. Rather, like the CFP, the great bulk of that $1 Billion would be divided evenly among the P5 conferences, with only a small component for merit. E.g., in the CFP, this year each P5 conference got a base $64m, and then on top of that they got whatever their contract bowl tie-in amount was, with only $6m going to the "merit" component, the teams that made the playoffs.

There's no way that the power conferences would agree to a format where all, or even a large amount, of tournament money was based on merit, namely teams making the tourney and then advancing. They all want guaranteed income.

Also, the existence of a $1 Billion hoops tournament doesn't alter the basketball/football value balance much. Remember that the hoops tournament is for 68 games, whereas the CFP generates half that amount for just the three CFP games.

(01-31-2020 07:06 PM)Crazier Wrote:  ESPN will eventually bankrupt themselves paying these huge amounts for conferences with all of this cord cutting going on. Let's be real, most p5 teams are just riding coattails of the historically good football schools for a good payday. All college football needs is two 14 team super conference's and the rest of the schools are irrelevant and not worth the pay.

It seemed that way 2-3 years ago, but give Disney credit, they pivoted very quickly in a streaming direction, and so seem well-positioned to profit that way too.

Remember, the underlying value isn't in the method of distribution, but the content, and even as we cut cords, our appetite for the content, college football, isn't abating.

1 point also- as the # of customers has gone down for ESPN, the $ per customer has gone up. So the net revenue hasn't really changed that much at all, and in fact may have gone up.

(01-31-2020 08:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 point also- as the # of customers has gone down for ESPN, the $ per customer has gone up. So the net revenue hasn't really changed that much at all, and in fact may have gone up.

That's gonna cause more cord cutting. Are they going to keep raising the prices to compensate for the more subscribers they lose?

(01-31-2020 08:57 PM)Crazier Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 point also- as the # of customers has gone down for ESPN, the $ per customer has gone up. So the net revenue hasn't really changed that much at all, and in fact may have gone up.

That's gonna cause more cord cutting. Are they going to keep raising the prices to compensate for the more subscribers they lose?

It's not going to affect them at all. Sports fans, particularly college football fans are not only going to subscribe but they are going to buy the tier that offers ESPNU, which is also the tier that carries the BTN, SECN and I'm assuming the ACCN. What is gong to be different, and may be a facet of the SEC's new contract is a separate fee for ESPN+ which is actually a better deal when you just buy Disney +. So what is going to happen is that there will be people who pay the extra 12 dollars a month for Football season to enjoy Disney and get ESPN+.
$48 dollars won't buy 1 ticket to an SEC game.

You are talking about people who until ESPN made all of the games available donated $1,200 a year for the privilege of buying 2 season ticket books in non prime seating areas for another $1,100. So if you are willing to spend $2,300 for a pair of tickets to the home games of your SEC school then buying a 2nd tier cable package with Disney plus for an extra $100 a football season added onto your cable bill is nothing.

The added Tier 2 inventory that is being created with expansion, and yes more is coming, will provide a nice impetus for that ESPN+ tier and conferences will get extra revenue created for that too.

The G5 have had this mantra of gloom and doom via cord cutters. The money is going to get better, and conference networks will run their course, but there will always be a new hook to catch the viewer and pay the conferences.