(01-14-2024 03:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 02:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What people pay for:
Season Ticket Books for SEC games: $750 a book with a $1000 donation for the privilege to purchase 2 season books.

UVerse Bundle: Cable/Internet/Phone $250 per month, $300 per month with a premium sports tier.

If ESPN channels are sold for $45 a month including conference networks and the ESPN package which included the NFL goes for more, then reaching $60 a month is not inconceivable. If it all sold for $70 a month that's $840 for the year. That's not costly for a sports fan when the purchase of ESPN gives them college baseball, college softball, gymnastics, and basketball.

Sorry but it's still not overpriced and really still is a bargain for what you get.

Certainly, comparing to in-person tickets isn’t the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is the price to get the same sports that we had on basic cable before via direct-to-consumer streaming. ESPN is one charge, your regional sports network (or multiple RSNs in places like New York, Chicago, LA and Boston) are more charges, getting CBS/Paramount+ and NBC/Peacock are more charges, getting the Turner sports on Max with another charge that will eventually require another sports tier charge on top of that, and then figuring out how to get the Fox channels that you currently can get direct-to-consumer at all. I’m looking at the price to get all of that (not just ESPN) because that is what’s required to get just the basic “I want my local pro sports teams and the major national sports events” that the typical sports fan just to used to automatically get from the cable bundle, and that doesn’t even include Amazon Prime and Apple TV+ that have various rights.

That $250/$300 price that you’re quoting is neglecting that you also need to pay for Internet and phone separately if you go direct-to-consumer. So, to get a truthful figure, you need to add whatever you’re paying for Internet and phone on top of it (and if you have a basic Internet plan, you’re going to want to pay for a better one if you’re streaming everything).

I don’t speak from this as a Luddite still paying for cable or satellite, but rather from a household that IS streaming *everything*. I have every single one of the streaming services that I just listed above plus Hulu Live TV+ and Netflix along with an old-fashioned antenna connected to an AirTV box that allows us to stream any over-the-air channels to any of our devices. I get them because I’m an unambiguous across-the-board sports fan - I want to watch my football, basketball, baseball and hockey, which means I don’t/can’t just pick and choose to turn things on and off. However, we’re pretty close to the point where I’m not longer saving money compared to my old DirecTV package anymore. I was saving money 3 years ago, but it’s not really a money-saving proposition now and it’s going to quickly to be outright more expensive because streaming service prices have been rising unabated.

Now, if you’re someone that truly *just* watches football, then sure, you can realistically turn services on and off depending on the time of year and can manage things that way. However, most sports fans aren’t like that (or they watch more sports than they say they do if you took a full inventory). Even if you just wanted to watch the championships of the major sports - NFL playoffs, CFP, NCAA Tournament, NBA Finals and World Series - which is pretty typical for the casual sports fan, that would require at least 4 different streaming services plus the antenna setup that I mentioned to get your local Fox channel.

Now, I would say that the major advantages of streaming are flexibility to watch among multiple devices, flexibility in adding and dropping services (e.g. you’re not paying a connection charge like cable), and everything can be run through a one-time purchase of a Roku (or other smart TV device) as opposed to having to incur monthly charges for cable and satellite boxes.

So, I’m not saying streaming is BAD. We made the decision to go all-streaming 5 years ago even before the pandemic, so we’ve been doing it longer than most people. However, I would push back that it’s cheaper if you’re a general sports fan that isn’t JUST watching football because I’m saying directly from experience that it’s very quickly going to cost me more to get the same sports that I used to get in the basic cable bundle.

Your make the mistake that most Northerners make about the South. Southerners would find the NFL ticket to be a bonus, and they only care about getting SEC sports and the ACC is right next door so sure add them too. They never cared about the PAC 12, or its network and the streaming package is already there which contains the BTN and FOX with ESPN. Get those and all you lack are professional sports.

I'm retired and like Terry D just get it all. U-verse without cable plus phone and internet is maybe $150 a month and that's 5G for the internet. We already have Paramount, Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video and Music, Hulu and some I'm forgetting because my wife watches them. We can drop U-verse now, which we are about to do, and get everything we want for $80 (a savings of about $70 a month) and we aren't typical, most get less. We got ticked off when U-verse dropped a bunch of channels, particularly news channels, and we lost the Japanese news service. I loved it! They presented each topic with the news relative to the viewpoint of each side involved.

Anyway, my luddite tendencies are tempered by practicality and security. We are not big professional sports junkies. We never watched the NBA, haven't watched professional football since the mid 80's, and only catch the Braves if the pennant race gets interesting. What we are, is typical of most in the South other than that we spend more. But then I made it a point when we got married to only buy what we could afford, to save in a variety of ways, and to stay out of debt. Initially our only exceptions were a vehicle and home loan. By the time our daughters were college aged we paid cash for their educations and cash for their vehicles, and ours, and only had the home loan, which was paid off a few years before retirement. We have the best insurance we can get. So, if not being in debt up to my eyeballs makes me a luddite, I would recommend it to everyone! And I guess I failed to mention that during all of that time prior to retirement we were season ticket holders for Auburn football, and in the years where we lived reasonably close to the campus for baseball and basketball too. And we were donors, just not the kind in the skybox though I have been in one for a game or two over the years. And my wife and I did it without inheritance since both of us still have a parent alive.

If ESPN and the NFL partner it will only give us more, and since we never were people to waste money on theme parks, though we did travel abroad, any increase per month in price for the sports we care about will be easily met. Our jobs now are keeping up the home, taking care of our moms, and trying to stay healthy and sane in a batcrap crazy world.

Anyway, to the point we can ditch the TV portion of U-verse and get everything we want including the main college sports carriers for under the $300 a month we currently pay for it all, so if the sports package goes up $60 bucks a month it's not a big deal as we'll be right back to the same $300, we are paying, just with a different configuration.

You’re making a very broad statement regarding the NFL without looking at the data. Certainly, living in Alabama is one thing because there’s no NFL competition. However, just look at what is now going to become the SEC’s most important market (if it isn’t already): the State of Texas. The Cowboys are the single most important franchise in the NFL and Dallas has the largest local NFL viewership in terms of number of viewers compared to any other market:

https://x.com/sportstvratings/status/161...Iqq5RXMwkA

In terms of local NFL ratings, SEC markets Kansas City and New Orleans are #2 and #5, respectively.

So, we shouldn’t mistake the relatively high interest in college football in the South compared to other areas of the country (which I don’t deny) to it actually having outright *more* interest than the NFL in Southern markets (which isn’t true when looking at ratings data). Case in point: LA is a mediocre or even poor NFL market compared to virtually every other NFL market while it’s the single best and most valuable NBA market with one of the most famous sports brands in the world with the Lakers, but the NFL still draws far more viewers in LA than the NBA because the NFL is simply a monolith everywhere.

In any event, that’s beside the point because the viewing habits of NFL and college football fans are going to have the highest crossover of any two sports and they’re played in the same time of the year with the biggest games on the same handful of major networks, which is why I repeated multiple times that you can save money on streaming if you are truly JUST wanting to watch football (whether it’s the NFL or college).

I’m not quite sure where the comments about debt are coming from. I certainly don’t spend more than I can afford - it’s not like I’m taking some home equity loan so that I can pay for streaming services or not maxing out 401(k)s or 529s or paying extra principal on our mortgage every month. I pay for these services because I enjoy watching a cross-section of sports and I can afford it well within our budget and lifestyle. If people are having to run up credit card debt to pay for things, then of course they shouldn’t be paying for it. So, yes, I’d agree if that someone is racking up debt to pay to watch sports, then that’s not a smart financial decision to say the least.

My primary point is that no one is paying less for the same sports that we were all getting before with basic cable. We might pay less for fewer sports (which might be perfectly acceptable for a lot of people, as might be the case for you) or more to get the same sports (which is what I’m experiencing), but no one is paying less for the same sports. We can go back on these forums for the past several years where a lot of people truly and legitimately believed that the latter would happen. I said that was a misguided point of view then and it should be crystal clear as misguided now.

Frank, I referenced my lack of debt to substantiate that my views on this matter are not from a typical consumer. Nothing nefarious about that! I didn't think, given your personal information shared, that you would be in the typical debtor camp either. Since we are both alien to the average for this conversation's sake, I think it fair to note that when it comes to live sports most Americans over age 50 will simply spend what it takes and make up for it by cutting something else if they are in a more strapped budgetary situation.

I'm not sure any of this is even relevant for concern since the younger people (thinking 40 and younger) simply aren't into it with the same level of commitment. I see this as a demographic issue and not one of technology, or business partnerships. You either played and love watching, or didn't play and don't love watching, but will watch culturally when it is the focus of a gathering or party. Hence the level of commitment to the sport for the sake of just enjoying the sport, likely dies with Gen X.

Consolidation is nothing more than the necessary leverage to preserve the sport and keep the money rolling in until end of its golden age, likely around 2036. That's why there is no conventional wisdom governing realignment moves now.

What I'm seeing coming is the NFL (fully aware of its dependency upon college football, and now having its fate coupled with that of college football in a more palpable and obvious way) will seek a more direct relationship with college football's upper tier in an effort to preserve the sport. What was once a competition for viewers will no become a symbiotic relationship for mutual long-term survival.

By creating an upper tier in college sports of between 48 to 60 schools (maybe 56) and by cooperating with that college tier instead of competing with it, I'm thinking the NFL is hoping to maintain interest in a sport which has health considerations, but can be maintained, with player development, rules aligned and focused upon constraining the numbers of preventable injuries, and with audiences merged with a more intentional connection to the professional careers of the collegiate level athletes. There can, and likely must be a synergy between the two levels for the sport to be maintained, and as long as it is a means to achieve for the physically gifted but poor, it can be sustained.

The challenge for the future of the NFL and College Football will be developing new generations of fans who likely will not have played. But establishing cooperation now is a necessary first step in that direction. Perhaps Flag Football will help in at least the fundamental aspects of the sport will be the same. We'll see. But either way, what platform of television it is on, and how much that costs is the least of their worries demographically speaking. And until Boomers are gone and X'ers are retired the main audience will have enough to buy what they want.

Millennials are actually still decent sports viewers. However, I agree that Gen Z (who are really what a lot of older people are referring to when they say “Millennials” similar to how a lot of younger people refer to everyone over 40 as a “Boomer” even though they’re not actually Boomers) is the risk for all sports leagues.

I think the days where Gen Z (and younger) just sit down and watch games week after week or day after day are over. Having said that, football still has a mass cultural advantage (which you alluded to) in a world where the “monoculture” is increasingly going away or nonexistent. That’s really still the one *relative* advantage that football and other sports have over other types of media for even Gen Z. People need to understand that Gen Z pretty much has little to no monoculture at all for *anything*: music interest is dispersed, TV show watching is dispersed outside of a handful of hits on Netflix, movie watching is totally dispersed, there are no mass culture book series like Harry Potter or The Hunger Games 15 years ago, etc. So, when viewed in that context, the Gen Z interest in football is actually still high *compared* to everything else.

The other factor that a lot of sports leagues know is that sports gambling is absolutely HUGE with Millennials and Gen Z. It might be a deal with the devil in a lot of ways, but it’s why we’ve gone from pro leagues actively avoiding teams in Las Vegas 5 years ago to having a Super Bowl being held there this year and likely having all 4 major pro leagues there by the end of this decade. Hence why a disproportionate number of ads on sporting events are with online gambling sites. I’m not saying that it’s a good thing, but Millennials and Gen Z absolutely do love betting on football (as it’s the most gambling-friendly sport by far), so that’s a countervailing buoy that we’re seeing with the younger generation. It’s not about being a loyal fan cheering for the local favorite team, but following the big games where the gambling action is at. That’s a big reason why the NFL and biggest college football games are actually being watched by more people than ever even though viewership for everything else on TV has totally plummeted.

(01-14-2024 02:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 12:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That’s the point - remember that ESPN hasn’t just been profitable, but for much of the period between 2005-2015, they generally made as much profits as the rest of the *entire* Walt Disney Company *combined*. It was the single biggest profit engine in the entire history of the entertainment industry (not just sports). That is what Disney has been used to for so many years. So, for ESPN to go from those heights to be just a breakeven proposition is really tough. They legitimately do need to charge in the $60-80-100 range to get the equivalent of the subscriber fees that they had before. Plus, remember that ad rates go down outside of the basic cable space because audiences are smaller on streaming, so ESPN would be making less on that front, too. For as much as people like talking about how ESPN manipulates everything in college sports, they often also strangely underrate the sheer amount of revenue and profits that ESPN has been bringing in up until the last couple of years and, in turn, totally underrate what would be the required price of a direct-to-consumer product that could even come close to making material profits for ESPN.

We’re paying $20 per month just for Marquee Sports Network for *only* Cubs games. Yankees fans are paying on the order to $30 per month for YES for *only* Yankees games. So, think about how much ESPN is worth in that context. Sports are by FAR the most expensive type on programming and it’s not even close. I’ve said for years that sports fans that thought that they would pay less for sports with streaming had zero clue about the economics where all of those HGTV, TLC and Bravo viewers were subsidizing US as sports fans (whereas very little of our cable bill was going toward non-sports channels). That’s now coming to bear.

What people pay for:
Season Ticket Books for SEC games: $750 a book with a $1000 donation for the privilege to purchase 2 season books.

UVerse Bundle: Cable/Internet/Phone $250 per month, $300 per month with a premium sports tier.

If ESPN channels are sold for $45 a month including conference networks and the ESPN package which included the NFL goes for more, then reaching $60 a month is not inconceivable. If it all sold for $70 a month that's $840 for the year. That's not costly for a sports fan when the purchase of ESPN gives them college baseball, college softball, gymnastics, and basketball.

Sorry but it's still not overpriced and really still is a bargain for what you get.

Certainly, comparing to in-person tickets isn’t the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is the price to get the same sports that we had on basic cable before via direct-to-consumer streaming. ESPN is one charge, your regional sports network (or multiple RSNs in places like New York, Chicago, LA and Boston) are more charges, getting CBS/Paramount+ and NBC/Peacock are more charges, getting the Turner sports on Max with another charge that will eventually require another sports tier charge on top of that, and then figuring out how to get the Fox channels that you currently can get direct-to-consumer at all. I’m looking at the price to get all of that (not just ESPN) because that is what’s required to get just the basic “I want my local pro sports teams and the major national sports events” that the typical sports fan just to used to automatically get from the cable bundle, and that doesn’t even include Amazon Prime and Apple TV+ that have various rights.

That $250/$300 price that you’re quoting is neglecting that you also need to pay for Internet and phone separately if you go direct-to-consumer. So, to get a truthful figure, you need to add whatever you’re paying for Internet and phone on top of it (and if you have a basic Internet plan, you’re going to want to pay for a better one if you’re streaming everything).

I don’t speak from this as a Luddite still paying for cable or satellite, but rather from a household that IS streaming *everything*. I have every single one of the streaming services that I just listed above plus Hulu Live TV+ and Netflix along with an old-fashioned antenna connected to an AirTV box that allows us to stream any over-the-air channels to any of our devices. I get them because I’m an unambiguous across-the-board sports fan - I want to watch my football, basketball, baseball and hockey, which means I don’t/can’t just pick and choose to turn things on and off. However, we’re pretty close to the point where I’m not longer saving money compared to my old DirecTV package anymore. I was saving money 3 years ago, but it’s not really a money-saving proposition now and it’s going to quickly to be outright more expensive because streaming service prices have been rising unabated.

Now, if you’re someone that truly *just* watches football, then sure, you can realistically turn services on and off depending on the time of year and can manage things that way. However, most sports fans aren’t like that (or they watch more sports than they say they do if you took a full inventory). Even if you just wanted to watch the championships of the major sports - NFL playoffs, CFP, NCAA Tournament, NBA Finals and World Series - which is pretty typical for the casual sports fan, that would require at least 4 different streaming services plus the antenna setup that I mentioned to get your local Fox channel.

Now, I would say that the major advantages of streaming are flexibility to watch among multiple devices, flexibility in adding and dropping services (e.g. you’re not paying a connection charge like cable), and everything can be run through a one-time purchase of a Roku (or other smart TV device) as opposed to having to incur monthly charges for cable and satellite boxes.

So, I’m not saying streaming is BAD. We made the decision to go all-streaming 5 years ago even before the pandemic, so we’ve been doing it longer than most people. However, I would push back that it’s cheaper if you’re a general sports fan that isn’t JUST watching football because I’m saying directly from experience that it’s very quickly going to cost me more to get the same sports that I used to get in the basic cable bundle.

Your make the mistake that most Northerners make about the South. Southerners would find the NFL ticket to be a bonus, and they only care about getting SEC sports and the ACC is right next door so sure add them too. They never cared about the PAC 12, or its network and the streaming package is already there which contains the BTN and FOX with ESPN. Get those and all you lack are professional sports.

I'm retired and like Terry D just get it all. U-verse without cable plus phone and internet is maybe $150 a month and that's 5G for the internet. We already have Paramount, Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video and Music, Hulu and some I'm forgetting because my wife watches them. We can drop U-verse now, which we are about to do, and get everything we want for $80 (a savings of about $70 a month) and we aren't typical, most get less. We got ticked off when U-verse dropped a bunch of channels, particularly news channels, and we lost the Japanese news service. I loved it! They presented each topic with the news relative to the viewpoint of each side involved.

Anyway, my luddite tendencies are tempered by practicality and security. We are not big professional sports junkies. We never watched the NBA, haven't watched professional football since the mid 80's, and only catch the Braves if the pennant race gets interesting. What we are, is typical of most in the South other than that we spend more. But then I made it a point when we got married to only buy what we could afford, to save in a variety of ways, and to stay out of debt. Initially our only exceptions were a vehicle and home loan. By the time our daughters were college aged we paid cash for their educations and cash for their vehicles, and ours, and only had the home loan, which was paid off a few years before retirement. We have the best insurance we can get. So, if not being in debt up to my eyeballs makes me a luddite, I would recommend it to everyone! And I guess I failed to mention that during all of that time prior to retirement we were season ticket holders for Auburn football, and in the years where we lived reasonably close to the campus for baseball and basketball too. And we were donors, just not the kind in the skybox though I have been in one for a game or two over the years. And my wife and I did it without inheritance since both of us still have a parent alive.

If ESPN and the NFL partner it will only give us more, and since we never were people to waste money on theme parks, though we did travel abroad, any increase per month in price for the sports we care about will be easily met. Our jobs now are keeping up the home, taking care of our moms, and trying to stay healthy and sane in a batcrap crazy world.

Anyway, to the point we can ditch the TV portion of U-verse and get everything we want including the main college sports carriers for under the $300 a month we currently pay for it all, so if the sports package goes up $60 bucks a month it's not a big deal as we'll be right back to the same $300, we are paying, just with a different configuration.

You’re making a very broad statement regarding the NFL without looking at the data. Certainly, living in Alabama is one thing because there’s no NFL competition. However, just look at what is now going to become the SEC’s most important market (if it isn’t already): the State of Texas. The Cowboys are the single most important franchise in the NFL and Dallas has the largest local NFL viewership in terms of number of viewers compared to any other market:

https://x.com/sportstvratings/status/161...Iqq5RXMwkA

In terms of local NFL ratings, SEC markets Kansas City and New Orleans are #2 and #5, respectively.

So, we shouldn’t mistake the relatively high interest in college football in the South compared to other areas of the country (which I don’t deny) to it actually having outright *more* interest than the NFL in Southern markets (which isn’t true when looking at ratings data). Case in point: LA is a mediocre or even poor NFL market compared to virtually every other NFL market while it’s the single best and most valuable NBA market with one of the most famous sports brands in the world with the Lakers, but the NFL still draws far more viewers in LA than the NBA because the NFL is simply a monolith everywhere.

In any event, that’s beside the point because the viewing habits of NFL and college football fans are going to have the highest crossover of any two sports and they’re played in the same time of the year with the biggest games on the same handful of major networks, which is why I repeated multiple times that you can save money on streaming if you are truly JUST wanting to watch football (whether it’s the NFL or college).

I’m not quite sure where the comments about debt are coming from. I certainly don’t spend more than I can afford - it’s not like I’m taking some home equity loan so that I can pay for streaming services or not maxing out 401(k)s or 529s or paying extra principal on our mortgage every month. I pay for these services because I enjoy watching a cross-section of sports and I can afford it well within our budget and lifestyle. If people are having to run up credit card debt to pay for things, then of course they shouldn’t be paying for it. So, yes, I’d agree if that someone is racking up debt to pay to watch sports, then that’s not a smart financial decision to say the least.

My primary point is that no one is paying less for the same sports that we were all getting before with basic cable. We might pay less for fewer sports (which might be perfectly acceptable for a lot of people, as might be the case for you) or more to get the same sports (which is what I’m experiencing), but no one is paying less for the same sports. We can go back on these forums for the past several years where a lot of people truly and legitimately believed that the latter would happen. I said that was a misguided point of view then and it should be crystal clear as misguided now.

I don’t know if this is going to happen for sure. I switched to Sling TV and it’s certainly cheaper for same or more sports content but less of non sports content. So for people like me who watch only sports, Sling TV was actually cheaper and I expect ESPN DTC would be even cheaper.

I get that the cable model was super lucarative and the streaming might not be. But why should we assume the customers take all the burden? ESPN will get less profit and try to cut cost.

(01-14-2024 03:46 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 02:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 12:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What people pay for:
Season Ticket Books for SEC games: $750 a book with a $1000 donation for the privilege to purchase 2 season books.

UVerse Bundle: Cable/Internet/Phone $250 per month, $300 per month with a premium sports tier.

If ESPN channels are sold for $45 a month including conference networks and the ESPN package which included the NFL goes for more, then reaching $60 a month is not inconceivable. If it all sold for $70 a month that's $840 for the year. That's not costly for a sports fan when the purchase of ESPN gives them college baseball, college softball, gymnastics, and basketball.

Sorry but it's still not overpriced and really still is a bargain for what you get.

Certainly, comparing to in-person tickets isn’t the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is the price to get the same sports that we had on basic cable before via direct-to-consumer streaming. ESPN is one charge, your regional sports network (or multiple RSNs in places like New York, Chicago, LA and Boston) are more charges, getting CBS/Paramount+ and NBC/Peacock are more charges, getting the Turner sports on Max with another charge that will eventually require another sports tier charge on top of that, and then figuring out how to get the Fox channels that you currently can get direct-to-consumer at all. I’m looking at the price to get all of that (not just ESPN) because that is what’s required to get just the basic “I want my local pro sports teams and the major national sports events” that the typical sports fan just to used to automatically get from the cable bundle, and that doesn’t even include Amazon Prime and Apple TV+ that have various rights.

That $250/$300 price that you’re quoting is neglecting that you also need to pay for Internet and phone separately if you go direct-to-consumer. So, to get a truthful figure, you need to add whatever you’re paying for Internet and phone on top of it (and if you have a basic Internet plan, you’re going to want to pay for a better one if you’re streaming everything).

I don’t speak from this as a Luddite still paying for cable or satellite, but rather from a household that IS streaming *everything*. I have every single one of the streaming services that I just listed above plus Hulu Live TV+ and Netflix along with an old-fashioned antenna connected to an AirTV box that allows us to stream any over-the-air channels to any of our devices. I get them because I’m an unambiguous across-the-board sports fan - I want to watch my football, basketball, baseball and hockey, which means I don’t/can’t just pick and choose to turn things on and off. However, we’re pretty close to the point where I’m not longer saving money compared to my old DirecTV package anymore. I was saving money 3 years ago, but it’s not really a money-saving proposition now and it’s going to quickly to be outright more expensive because streaming service prices have been rising unabated.

Now, if you’re someone that truly *just* watches football, then sure, you can realistically turn services on and off depending on the time of year and can manage things that way. However, most sports fans aren’t like that (or they watch more sports than they say they do if you took a full inventory). Even if you just wanted to watch the championships of the major sports - NFL playoffs, CFP, NCAA Tournament, NBA Finals and World Series - which is pretty typical for the casual sports fan, that would require at least 4 different streaming services plus the antenna setup that I mentioned to get your local Fox channel.

Now, I would say that the major advantages of streaming are flexibility to watch among multiple devices, flexibility in adding and dropping services (e.g. you’re not paying a connection charge like cable), and everything can be run through a one-time purchase of a Roku (or other smart TV device) as opposed to having to incur monthly charges for cable and satellite boxes.

So, I’m not saying streaming is BAD. We made the decision to go all-streaming 5 years ago even before the pandemic, so we’ve been doing it longer than most people. However, I would push back that it’s cheaper if you’re a general sports fan that isn’t JUST watching football because I’m saying directly from experience that it’s very quickly going to cost me more to get the same sports that I used to get in the basic cable bundle.

Your make the mistake that most Northerners make about the South. Southerners would find the NFL ticket to be a bonus, and they only care about getting SEC sports and the ACC is right next door so sure add them too. They never cared about the PAC 12, or its network and the streaming package is already there which contains the BTN and FOX with ESPN. Get those and all you lack are professional sports.

I'm retired and like Terry D just get it all. U-verse without cable plus phone and internet is maybe $150 a month and that's 5G for the internet. We already have Paramount, Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video and Music, Hulu and some I'm forgetting because my wife watches them. We can drop U-verse now, which we are about to do, and get everything we want for $80 (a savings of about $70 a month) and we aren't typical, most get less. We got ticked off when U-verse dropped a bunch of channels, particularly news channels, and we lost the Japanese news service. I loved it! They presented each topic with the news relative to the viewpoint of each side involved.

Anyway, my luddite tendencies are tempered by practicality and security. We are not big professional sports junkies. We never watched the NBA, haven't watched professional football since the mid 80's, and only catch the Braves if the pennant race gets interesting. What we are, is typical of most in the South other than that we spend more. But then I made it a point when we got married to only buy what we could afford, to save in a variety of ways, and to stay out of debt. Initially our only exceptions were a vehicle and home loan. By the time our daughters were college aged we paid cash for their educations and cash for their vehicles, and ours, and only had the home loan, which was paid off a few years before retirement. We have the best insurance we can get. So, if not being in debt up to my eyeballs makes me a luddite, I would recommend it to everyone! And I guess I failed to mention that during all of that time prior to retirement we were season ticket holders for Auburn football, and in the years where we lived reasonably close to the campus for baseball and basketball too. And we were donors, just not the kind in the skybox though I have been in one for a game or two over the years. And my wife and I did it without inheritance since both of us still have a parent alive.

If ESPN and the NFL partner it will only give us more, and since we never were people to waste money on theme parks, though we did travel abroad, any increase per month in price for the sports we care about will be easily met. Our jobs now are keeping up the home, taking care of our moms, and trying to stay healthy and sane in a batcrap crazy world.

Anyway, to the point we can ditch the TV portion of U-verse and get everything we want including the main college sports carriers for under the $300 a month we currently pay for it all, so if the sports package goes up $60 bucks a month it's not a big deal as we'll be right back to the same $300, we are paying, just with a different configuration.

You’re making a very broad statement regarding the NFL without looking at the data. Certainly, living in Alabama is one thing because there’s no NFL competition. However, just look at what is now going to become the SEC’s most important market (if it isn’t already): the State of Texas. The Cowboys are the single most important franchise in the NFL and Dallas has the largest local NFL viewership in terms of number of viewers compared to any other market:

https://x.com/sportstvratings/status/161...Iqq5RXMwkA

In terms of local NFL ratings, SEC markets Kansas City and New Orleans are #2 and #5, respectively.

So, we shouldn’t mistake the relatively high interest in college football in the South compared to other areas of the country (which I don’t deny) to it actually having outright *more* interest than the NFL in Southern markets (which isn’t true when looking at ratings data). Case in point: LA is a mediocre or even poor NFL market compared to virtually every other NFL market while it’s the single best and most valuable NBA market with one of the most famous sports brands in the world with the Lakers, but the NFL still draws far more viewers in LA than the NBA because the NFL is simply a monolith everywhere.

In any event, that’s beside the point because the viewing habits of NFL and college football fans are going to have the highest crossover of any two sports and they’re played in the same time of the year with the biggest games on the same handful of major networks, which is why I repeated multiple times that you can save money on streaming if you are truly JUST wanting to watch football (whether it’s the NFL or college).

I’m not quite sure where the comments about debt are coming from. I certainly don’t spend more than I can afford - it’s not like I’m taking some home equity loan so that I can pay for streaming services or not maxing out 401(k)s or 529s or paying extra principal on our mortgage every month. I pay for these services because I enjoy watching a cross-section of sports and I can afford it well within our budget and lifestyle. If people are having to run up credit card debt to pay for things, then of course they shouldn’t be paying for it. So, yes, I’d agree if that someone is racking up debt to pay to watch sports, then that’s not a smart financial decision to say the least.

My primary point is that no one is paying less for the same sports that we were all getting before with basic cable. We might pay less for fewer sports (which might be perfectly acceptable for a lot of people, as might be the case for you) or more to get the same sports (which is what I’m experiencing), but no one is paying less for the same sports. We can go back on these forums for the past several years where a lot of people truly and legitimately believed that the latter would happen. I said that was a misguided point of view then and it should be crystal clear as misguided now.

I don’t know if this is going to happen for sure. I switched to Sling TV and it’s certainly cheaper for same or more sports content but less of non sports content. So for people like me who watch only sports, Sling TV was actually cheaper and I expect ESPN DTC would be even cheaper.

I get that the cable model was super lucarative and the streaming might not be. But why should we assume the customers take all the burden? ESPN will get less profit and try to cut cost.

At least in the Chicago market, Sling does not provide either of the 2 in-market RSNs, BTN, SECN or ACCN. That’s a *massive* reduction in sports programming. I’m not denying that it might be cheaper, but that’s because they’re purposely *not* including sports networks besides ESPN, ESPN2 and FS1 (and I think NFL Network). Believe me - as a 100% streamer, I’ve looked over all of these channel lineups and compared pricing with a fine tooth comb.

And yes, I’m using a “I want every single game that I used to get in basic cable” standard in comparing everything. People saying, “I don’t watch NBA or MLB” is irrelevant to me because that’s not my standard and, when you’re comparing truly apples-to-apples, it’s straight up less sports compared to basic cable. Saying, “I’m paying less for sports!” but then it’s actually package where absolutely none of your RSNs are included or none of the conference networks are there is not actually paying less for the same. You’re paying less for less.

(01-14-2024 03:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 03:46 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 02:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  You’re making a very broad statement regarding the NFL without looking at the data. Certainly, living in Alabama is one thing because there’s no NFL competition. However, just look at what is now going to become the SEC’s most important market (if it isn’t already): the State of Texas. The Cowboys are the single most important franchise in the NFL and Dallas has the largest local NFL viewership in terms of number of viewers compared to any other market:

https://x.com/sportstvratings/status/161...Iqq5RXMwkA

In terms of local NFL ratings, SEC markets Kansas City and New Orleans are #2 and #5, respectively.

So, we shouldn’t mistake the relatively high interest in college football in the South compared to other areas of the country (which I don’t deny) to it actually having outright *more* interest than the NFL in Southern markets (which isn’t true when looking at ratings data). Case in point: LA is a mediocre or even poor NFL market compared to virtually every other NFL market while it’s the single best and most valuable NBA market with one of the most famous sports brands in the world with the Lakers, but the NFL still draws far more viewers in LA than the NBA because the NFL is simply a monolith everywhere.

In any event, that’s beside the point because the viewing habits of NFL and college football fans are going to have the highest crossover of any two sports and they’re played in the same time of the year with the biggest games on the same handful of major networks, which is why I repeated multiple times that you can save money on streaming if you are truly JUST wanting to watch football (whether it’s the NFL or college).

I’m not quite sure where the comments about debt are coming from. I certainly don’t spend more than I can afford - it’s not like I’m taking some home equity loan so that I can pay for streaming services or not maxing out 401(k)s or 529s or paying extra principal on our mortgage every month. I pay for these services because I enjoy watching a cross-section of sports and I can afford it well within our budget and lifestyle. If people are having to run up credit card debt to pay for things, then of course they shouldn’t be paying for it. So, yes, I’d agree if that someone is racking up debt to pay to watch sports, then that’s not a smart financial decision to say the least.

My primary point is that no one is paying less for the same sports that we were all getting before with basic cable. We might pay less for fewer sports (which might be perfectly acceptable for a lot of people, as might be the case for you) or more to get the same sports (which is what I’m experiencing), but no one is paying less for the same sports. We can go back on these forums for the past several years where a lot of people truly and legitimately believed that the latter would happen. I said that was a misguided point of view then and it should be crystal clear as misguided now.

I don’t know if this is going to happen for sure. I switched to Sling TV and it’s certainly cheaper for same or more sports content but less of non sports content. So for people like me who watch only sports, Sling TV was actually cheaper and I expect ESPN DTC would be even cheaper.

I get that the cable model was super lucarative and the streaming might not be. But why should we assume the customers take all the burden? ESPN will get less profit and try to cut cost.

At least in the Chicago market, Sling does not provide either of the 2 in-market RSNs, BTN, SECN or ACCN. That’s a *massive* reduction in sports programming. I’m not denying that it might be cheaper, but that’s because they’re purposely *not* including sports networks besides ESPN, ESPN2 and FS1 (and I think NFL Network). Believe me - as a 100% streamer, I’ve looked over all of these channel lineups and compared pricing with a fine tooth comb.

And yes, I’m using a “I want every single game that I used to get in basic cable” standard in comparing everything. People saying, “I don’t watch NBA or MLB” is irrelevant to me because that’s not my standard and, when you’re comparing truly apples-to-apples, it’s straight up less sports compared to basic cable. Saying, “I’m paying less for sports!” but then it’s actually package where absolutely none of your RSNs are included or none of the conference networks are there is not actually paying less for the same. You’re paying less for less.

What do you mean? The *basic* cable TV in my area costs more than $60 and doesn’t even have ESPN2. I got more sports channels and pay less.

Below is the basic TV package for $61.

https://www.cox.com/residential/tv/chann...GE_STARTER

(01-14-2024 04:48 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 03:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 03:46 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 02:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  You’re making a very broad statement regarding the NFL without looking at the data. Certainly, living in Alabama is one thing because there’s no NFL competition. However, just look at what is now going to become the SEC’s most important market (if it isn’t already): the State of Texas. The Cowboys are the single most important franchise in the NFL and Dallas has the largest local NFL viewership in terms of number of viewers compared to any other market:

https://x.com/sportstvratings/status/161...Iqq5RXMwkA

In terms of local NFL ratings, SEC markets Kansas City and New Orleans are #2 and #5, respectively.

So, we shouldn’t mistake the relatively high interest in college football in the South compared to other areas of the country (which I don’t deny) to it actually having outright *more* interest than the NFL in Southern markets (which isn’t true when looking at ratings data). Case in point: LA is a mediocre or even poor NFL market compared to virtually every other NFL market while it’s the single best and most valuable NBA market with one of the most famous sports brands in the world with the Lakers, but the NFL still draws far more viewers in LA than the NBA because the NFL is simply a monolith everywhere.

In any event, that’s beside the point because the viewing habits of NFL and college football fans are going to have the highest crossover of any two sports and they’re played in the same time of the year with the biggest games on the same handful of major networks, which is why I repeated multiple times that you can save money on streaming if you are truly JUST wanting to watch football (whether it’s the NFL or college).

I’m not quite sure where the comments about debt are coming from. I certainly don’t spend more than I can afford - it’s not like I’m taking some home equity loan so that I can pay for streaming services or not maxing out 401(k)s or 529s or paying extra principal on our mortgage every month. I pay for these services because I enjoy watching a cross-section of sports and I can afford it well within our budget and lifestyle. If people are having to run up credit card debt to pay for things, then of course they shouldn’t be paying for it. So, yes, I’d agree if that someone is racking up debt to pay to watch sports, then that’s not a smart financial decision to say the least.

My primary point is that no one is paying less for the same sports that we were all getting before with basic cable. We might pay less for fewer sports (which might be perfectly acceptable for a lot of people, as might be the case for you) or more to get the same sports (which is what I’m experiencing), but no one is paying less for the same sports. We can go back on these forums for the past several years where a lot of people truly and legitimately believed that the latter would happen. I said that was a misguided point of view then and it should be crystal clear as misguided now.

I don’t know if this is going to happen for sure. I switched to Sling TV and it’s certainly cheaper for same or more sports content but less of non sports content. So for people like me who watch only sports, Sling TV was actually cheaper and I expect ESPN DTC would be even cheaper.

I get that the cable model was super lucarative and the streaming might not be. But why should we assume the customers take all the burden? ESPN will get less profit and try to cut cost.

At least in the Chicago market, Sling does not provide either of the 2 in-market RSNs, BTN, SECN or ACCN. That’s a *massive* reduction in sports programming. I’m not denying that it might be cheaper, but that’s because they’re purposely *not* including sports networks besides ESPN, ESPN2 and FS1 (and I think NFL Network). Believe me - as a 100% streamer, I’ve looked over all of these channel lineups and compared pricing with a fine tooth comb.

And yes, I’m using a “I want every single game that I used to get in basic cable” standard in comparing everything. People saying, “I don’t watch NBA or MLB” is irrelevant to me because that’s not my standard and, when you’re comparing truly apples-to-apples, it’s straight up less sports compared to basic cable. Saying, “I’m paying less for sports!” but then it’s actually package where absolutely none of your RSNs are included or none of the conference networks are there is not actually paying less for the same. You’re paying less for less.

What do you mean? The *basic* cable TV in my area costs more than $60 and doesn’t even have ESPN2. I got more sports channels and pay less.

Below is the basic TV package for $61.

https://www.cox.com/residential/tv/chann...GE_STARTER

I can’t see that link because I’m not in a Cox market, but I found a channel list for the Omaha market:

https://www.cox.com/static/cl/Omaha.pdf

I believe that you’re referring to the Starter package, which is a “skinny” bundle of bare bones channels. What we know as “basic cable” is really what they call Contour Preferred - that has ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, Bally Sports Midwest (the applicable RSN), and BTN. Sling doesn’t even offer BTN. You can get Bally Sports Midwest direct-to-consumer for $20 per month, so that would need to be added to your Sling subscription price to get a true comparison (and just face the fact that you’re not getting the college conference networks with Sling).

Now, is that price possible currently still less than basic cable? Very possibly. Like I’ve said, the lack of paying for multiple satellite/cable boxes if you have multiple TVs is a major advantage for streaming.

However, I’m telling you straight up as someone that has been streaming for the last 5 years: what once was clearly cheaper with streaming is pretty much at the point where it’s not clearly cheaper on price as a sports fan and, with the rate of how fast streaming prices are going up, anyone that thinks they’re going to pay less a couple of years from now is fooling themselves. (Now, if you’re a non-sports fan, it’s no debate. Cutting the cord is unambiguously cheaper if you don’t watch sports.) Since my family pretty much watches something on all of the different streaming services where we’d be buying them, anyway, cutting the cord as a sports fan probably still makes sense for me personally, but the “saving money” aspect that was there 5 years ago simply isn’t there anymore (and once again, I’m a “snobby” sports fan that isn’t cool with losing NBA and MLB games in the way that some others might be fine with here, in which case those others might very well save some money because they can legitimately have fewer streaming services and still be satisfied). At the very least, these companies aren’t doing all this with the expectation that we’re going to pay *less* in the long run.

(01-14-2024 05:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 04:48 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 03:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 03:46 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 02:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  You’re making a very broad statement regarding the NFL without looking at the data. Certainly, living in Alabama is one thing because there’s no NFL competition. However, just look at what is now going to become the SEC’s most important market (if it isn’t already): the State of Texas. The Cowboys are the single most important franchise in the NFL and Dallas has the largest local NFL viewership in terms of number of viewers compared to any other market:

https://x.com/sportstvratings/status/161...Iqq5RXMwkA

In terms of local NFL ratings, SEC markets Kansas City and New Orleans are #2 and #5, respectively.

So, we shouldn’t mistake the relatively high interest in college football in the South compared to other areas of the country (which I don’t deny) to it actually having outright *more* interest than the NFL in Southern markets (which isn’t true when looking at ratings data). Case in point: LA is a mediocre or even poor NFL market compared to virtually every other NFL market while it’s the single best and most valuable NBA market with one of the most famous sports brands in the world with the Lakers, but the NFL still draws far more viewers in LA than the NBA because the NFL is simply a monolith everywhere.

In any event, that’s beside the point because the viewing habits of NFL and college football fans are going to have the highest crossover of any two sports and they’re played in the same time of the year with the biggest games on the same handful of major networks, which is why I repeated multiple times that you can save money on streaming if you are truly JUST wanting to watch football (whether it’s the NFL or college).

I’m not quite sure where the comments about debt are coming from. I certainly don’t spend more than I can afford - it’s not like I’m taking some home equity loan so that I can pay for streaming services or not maxing out 401(k)s or 529s or paying extra principal on our mortgage every month. I pay for these services because I enjoy watching a cross-section of sports and I can afford it well within our budget and lifestyle. If people are having to run up credit card debt to pay for things, then of course they shouldn’t be paying for it. So, yes, I’d agree if that someone is racking up debt to pay to watch sports, then that’s not a smart financial decision to say the least.

My primary point is that no one is paying less for the same sports that we were all getting before with basic cable. We might pay less for fewer sports (which might be perfectly acceptable for a lot of people, as might be the case for you) or more to get the same sports (which is what I’m experiencing), but no one is paying less for the same sports. We can go back on these forums for the past several years where a lot of people truly and legitimately believed that the latter would happen. I said that was a misguided point of view then and it should be crystal clear as misguided now.

I don’t know if this is going to happen for sure. I switched to Sling TV and it’s certainly cheaper for same or more sports content but less of non sports content. So for people like me who watch only sports, Sling TV was actually cheaper and I expect ESPN DTC would be even cheaper.

I get that the cable model was super lucarative and the streaming might not be. But why should we assume the customers take all the burden? ESPN will get less profit and try to cut cost.

At least in the Chicago market, Sling does not provide either of the 2 in-market RSNs, BTN, SECN or ACCN. That’s a *massive* reduction in sports programming. I’m not denying that it might be cheaper, but that’s because they’re purposely *not* including sports networks besides ESPN, ESPN2 and FS1 (and I think NFL Network). Believe me - as a 100% streamer, I’ve looked over all of these channel lineups and compared pricing with a fine tooth comb.

And yes, I’m using a “I want every single game that I used to get in basic cable” standard in comparing everything. People saying, “I don’t watch NBA or MLB” is irrelevant to me because that’s not my standard and, when you’re comparing truly apples-to-apples, it’s straight up less sports compared to basic cable. Saying, “I’m paying less for sports!” but then it’s actually package where absolutely none of your RSNs are included or none of the conference networks are there is not actually paying less for the same. You’re paying less for less.

What do you mean? The *basic* cable TV in my area costs more than $60 and doesn’t even have ESPN2. I got more sports channels and pay less.

Below is the basic TV package for $61.

https://www.cox.com/residential/tv/chann...GE_STARTER

I can’t see that link because I’m not in a Cox market, but I found a channel list for the Omaha market:

https://www.cox.com/static/cl/Omaha.pdf

I believe that you’re referring to the Starter package, which is a “skinny” bundle of bare bones channels. What we know as “basic cable” is really what they call Contour Preferred - that has ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, Bally Sports Midwest (the applicable RSN), and BTN. Sling doesn’t even offer BTN. You can get Bally Sports Midwest direct-to-consumer for $20 per month, so that would need to be added to your Sling subscription price to get a true comparison (and just face the fact that you’re not getting the college conference networks with Sling).

Now, is that price possible currently still less than basic cable? Very possibly. Like I’ve said, the lack of paying for multiple satellite/cable boxes if you have multiple TVs is a major advantage for streaming.

However, I’m telling you straight up as someone that has been streaming for the last 5 years: what once was clearly cheaper with streaming is pretty much at the point where it’s not clearly cheaper on price as a sports fan and, with the rate of how fast streaming prices are going up, anyone that thinks they’re going to pay less a couple of years from now is fooling themselves. (Now, if you’re a non-sports fan, it’s no debate. Cutting the cord is unambiguously cheaper if you don’t watch sports.) Since my family pretty much watches something on all of the different streaming services where we’d be buying them, anyway, cutting the cord as a sports fan probably still makes sense for me personally, but the “saving money” aspect that was there 5 years ago simply isn’t there anymore (and once again, I’m a “snobby” sports fan that isn’t cool with losing NBA and MLB games in the way that some others might be fine with here, in which case those others might very well save some money because they can legitimately have fewer streaming services and still be satisfied). At the very least, these companies aren’t doing all this with the expectation that we’re going to pay *less* in the long run.

Sling TV does offer BTN as an add-on for the blue plan ($11).

But I get it. If you need to access every sports content, it might not be cost-effective. Streaming can add up.

DTC is a la carte by definition. The cable “bundle” might be cheaper than subscribing to a bunch of different DTC channels.

But if you only need ESPN content, ESPN streaming should be cheaper than ESPN plus any other non-ESPN content on a cable bundle. Otherwise, nobody would switch to ESPN streaming.

Now, if ESPN partners with the NFL and maybe NBA and/or MLS in the future, that would meet many sports fans’ need. They wouldn’t need to subscribe to sports networks other than ESPN streaming.

To me, this seems like the direction ESPN is moving toward.

Everyone thought ESPN was working with sports leagues on equity stakes so they could save their business in the long term.

That's not totally wrong, but it's too simplistic. People thought they were simply raising capital. No.

When ESPN launches their DTC product(whenever that happens to be) they should be smart enough to know people pay for value and convenience. Content is a part of that equation obviously, but what I'm getting at is the fact that more and more people are complaining about buying multiple streaming services to watch their favorite sports. Why can't this whole thing be simpler? That's what they're effectively asking.

Well, also take into consideration the Dolphins/Chiefs game last night was apparently the most streamed event in US history with 23M viewers. So yes, all the people complaining about subscribing to Peacock for a playoff game still mostly did so. It's not the streaming component people have a real problem with...it's the inconvenience of switching platforms.

So what if ESPN partnering with NFL is just the beginning? A DTC product will be valuable if you have general ESPN content that specializes in the SEC, ACC, and now the NFL. But wait...there's UFC too...lots of special access to content there.

What if the other major sports leagues are next?

What if the ESPN DTC product is a way to aggregate a lot of content online? Trading equity stakes to get a grip on the sports market that other companies couldn't immediately duplicate could pay dividends.

RSNs made money by aggregating content by market. They're on their way out, but something similar could work on a national scale. The RSNs carried huge numbers of MLB, NBA, and NHL games. Now many of those RSNs are on the verge of disappearing which leaves a gaping hole in the broadcast revenue for these leagues.

Obviously, ESPN can't simply get the rights to the vast majority of games for each major league, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the vested partnerships could produce favorable content deals that are robust in ways the traditional approach to purchasing media rights could not replicate. And in doing so, become a valuable commodity for sports fans in virtually any market.

EDIT:

Let me add that getting the NFL on board would be the most important piece to this puzzle. Once they're on board then the others are more interested in following as they will like being bundled with the league that garners the most viewers.

From ESPN's perspective, it also sets the market. Whatever the equity stake is for the NFL, everyone understands the price will be less for everyone else.

(01-14-2024 11:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  When ESPN launches their DTC product(whenever that happens to be) they should be smart enough to know people pay for value and convenience. Content is a part of that equation obviously, but what I'm getting at is the fact that more and more people are complaining about buying multiple streaming services to watch their favorite sports.

Obviously, ESPN can't simply get the rights to the vast majority of games for each major league, I'm not suggesting that.

I guess I'm not understanding what you're getting at here, as sentences one and two seem to be in opposition to sentence three.

(01-14-2024 10:40 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 05:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 04:48 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 03:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 03:46 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I don’t know if this is going to happen for sure. I switched to Sling TV and it’s certainly cheaper for same or more sports content but less of non sports content. So for people like me who watch only sports, Sling TV was actually cheaper and I expect ESPN DTC would be even cheaper.

I get that the cable model was super lucarative and the streaming might not be. But why should we assume the customers take all the burden? ESPN will get less profit and try to cut cost.

At least in the Chicago market, Sling does not provide either of the 2 in-market RSNs, BTN, SECN or ACCN. That’s a *massive* reduction in sports programming. I’m not denying that it might be cheaper, but that’s because they’re purposely *not* including sports networks besides ESPN, ESPN2 and FS1 (and I think NFL Network). Believe me - as a 100% streamer, I’ve looked over all of these channel lineups and compared pricing with a fine tooth comb.

And yes, I’m using a “I want every single game that I used to get in basic cable” standard in comparing everything. People saying, “I don’t watch NBA or MLB” is irrelevant to me because that’s not my standard and, when you’re comparing truly apples-to-apples, it’s straight up less sports compared to basic cable. Saying, “I’m paying less for sports!” but then it’s actually package where absolutely none of your RSNs are included or none of the conference networks are there is not actually paying less for the same. You’re paying less for less.

What do you mean? The *basic* cable TV in my area costs more than $60 and doesn’t even have ESPN2. I got more sports channels and pay less.

Below is the basic TV package for $61.

https://www.cox.com/residential/tv/chann...GE_STARTER

I can’t see that link because I’m not in a Cox market, but I found a channel list for the Omaha market:

https://www.cox.com/static/cl/Omaha.pdf

I believe that you’re referring to the Starter package, which is a “skinny” bundle of bare bones channels. What we know as “basic cable” is really what they call Contour Preferred - that has ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, Bally Sports Midwest (the applicable RSN), and BTN. Sling doesn’t even offer BTN. You can get Bally Sports Midwest direct-to-consumer for $20 per month, so that would need to be added to your Sling subscription price to get a true comparison (and just face the fact that you’re not getting the college conference networks with Sling).

Now, is that price possible currently still less than basic cable? Very possibly. Like I’ve said, the lack of paying for multiple satellite/cable boxes if you have multiple TVs is a major advantage for streaming.

However, I’m telling you straight up as someone that has been streaming for the last 5 years: what once was clearly cheaper with streaming is pretty much at the point where it’s not clearly cheaper on price as a sports fan and, with the rate of how fast streaming prices are going up, anyone that thinks they’re going to pay less a couple of years from now is fooling themselves. (Now, if you’re a non-sports fan, it’s no debate. Cutting the cord is unambiguously cheaper if you don’t watch sports.) Since my family pretty much watches something on all of the different streaming services where we’d be buying them, anyway, cutting the cord as a sports fan probably still makes sense for me personally, but the “saving money” aspect that was there 5 years ago simply isn’t there anymore (and once again, I’m a “snobby” sports fan that isn’t cool with losing NBA and MLB games in the way that some others might be fine with here, in which case those others might very well save some money because they can legitimately have fewer streaming services and still be satisfied). At the very least, these companies aren’t doing all this with the expectation that we’re going to pay *less* in the long run.

Sling TV does offer BTN as an add-on for the blue plan ($11).

But I get it. If you need to access every sports content, it might not be cost-effective. Streaming can add up.

DTC is a la carte by definition. The cable “bundle” might be cheaper than subscribing to a bunch of different DTC channels.

But if you only need ESPN content, ESPN streaming should be cheaper than ESPN plus any other non-ESPN content on a cable bundle. Otherwise, nobody would switch to ESPN streaming.

Now, if ESPN partners with the NFL and maybe NBA and/or MLS in the future, that would meet many sports fans’ need. They wouldn’t need to subscribe to sports networks other than ESPN streaming.

To me, this seems like the direction ESPN is moving toward.

Read this article from last October.

Report: ESPN eyes NFL+, NBA League Pass and MLB local games for future DTC service

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/espn...ott=T1NDou

(01-15-2024 12:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Read this article from last October.

Report: ESPN eyes NFL+, NBA League Pass and MLB local games for future DTC service

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/espn...ott=T1NDou

Eh. NFL+ would have to be more of a long-term play as it's mobile only and current NFL contracts would prohibit it being non-mobile only for quite a while yet. I'm also rather dubious that the NFL would want to put all its eggs into one basket.

MLB: Most of what I've read elsewhere makes it seem like MLB wants to get all their rights back and rake in all the profits from MLB.tv without a middleman.

Well, also take into consideration the Dolphins/Chiefs game last night was apparently the most streamed event in US history with 23M viewers. So yes, all the people complaining about subscribing to Peacock for a playoff game still mostly did so. It's not the streaming component people have a real problem with...it's the inconvenience of switching platforms.

THIS.

It's when I'm streaming a Jayhawk basketball game on ESPN+ and I wanna switch over at halftime to check something out... or pause for 15 min to get something done... there's no easy way back in ... buffering... (I have top of the line internet) ... it's so inconvenient...

I suspect someone is going to figure out how to take these streaming experiences off an app-based platform to something easier to get to... until then I dislike streaming...

ESPECIALLY baseball... no way do I have time to do appointment viewing for 162 games.... I can check things out to see if something interesting is happening and watch for 30 min or so if I can flip to it... but I'm not starting up my stream...

I am guessing the entire NFL playoff is gonna end up on PPV / streaming platforms eventually

(01-15-2024 04:00 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  Well, also take into consideration the Dolphins/Chiefs game last night was apparently the most streamed event in US history with 23M viewers. So yes, all the people complaining about subscribing to Peacock for a playoff game still mostly did so. It's not the streaming component people have a real problem with...it's the inconvenience of switching platforms.

THIS.

It's when I'm streaming a Jayhawk basketball game on ESPN+ and I wanna switch over at halftime to check something out... or pause for 15 min to get something done... there's no easy way back in ... buffering... (I have top of the line internet) ... it's so inconvenient...

I suspect someone is going to figure out how to take these streaming experiences off an app-based platform to something easier to get to... until then I dislike streaming...

ESPECIALLY baseball... no way do I have time to do appointment viewing for 162 games.... I can check things out to see if something interesting is happening and watch for 30 min or so if I can flip to it... but I'm not starting up my stream...

I am guessing the entire NFL playoff is gonna end up on PPV / streaming platforms eventually

No doubt that someone that can aggregate all of the streaming services together so that it becomes more like flipping through TV channels would be great for the consumer. We may even just see a bundle of all of the services sold just like cable.

Of course, that would require all of the streaming services to give up different measure of control, and as of now, they’re totally pushing back against it. Netflix is the monster here and they certainly don’t want to be a part of anything where you can flip from their shows over to an NFL game on Amazon or Peacock easily. The value of a streaming platform has largely been based on minutes spent by viewers on that platform, so they actually *want* it to be like a casino where it’s hard to find the exits as opposed to a TV-like experience of easily flipping channels. That’s a big-time disconnect between the incentives of the streaming services and what consumers actually want.

I would also temper the belief that the NFL is moving a lot to streaming-only. I think the a lot of people are falling victim to the PR nuances in that 23 million viewer number on Peacock. Yes, it’s a great number for *streaming* and shows that the NFL is the one thing that can get people to sign up for a service that they may never have heard of before. We’re also a college football-focused forum, so 23 million viewers seems huge since very few college football games ever get that number.

However, we have to put that 23 million number into the context. Very few people seem to be talking about how the early Saturday afternoon Browns-Texans game drew 29 million viewers with lower profile teams, a largely uncompetitive game, and a worse time slot on NBC. That indicates that Dolphins-Chiefs, featuring the biggest TV draw in the league (the Chiefs) in prime time against another team with legit stars would have likely gotten around 35-40 million viewers or more if it was on over-the-air television. Comcast wants people to focus on the Peacock number and have that perceived to be a success (and to be fair, grading it on a curve for streaming, it’s fair to call it a success for Peacock), but that has required them to sort of bury the fact that the early afternoon game with a worse matchup brand-wise got more viewers on NBC.

I still very much believe that the NFL cares about being the only thing on television that can get 30 million-plus viewers (as legitimately nothing else on TV has the ability to do it) and they’re going to be careful about their playoff games which very much have the ability to get to those numbers when they’re on over-the-air TV, particularly when a game like Dolphins-Chiefs could be in the 40 million viewer range. Selling one playoff game for a huge paycheck like they did to Peacock is one thing and they probably got enough viewers to justify doing it again in the future, but make no mistake that the Dolphins-Chiefs game was likely a 40 million viewer game for traditional TV and the NFL has always been quite careful about not sandbagging their audience sizes.

(01-14-2024 11:56 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 11:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  When ESPN launches their DTC product(whenever that happens to be) they should be smart enough to know people pay for value and convenience. Content is a part of that equation obviously, but what I'm getting at is the fact that more and more people are complaining about buying multiple streaming services to watch their favorite sports.

Obviously, ESPN can't simply get the rights to the vast majority of games for each major league, I'm not suggesting that.

I guess I'm not understanding what you're getting at here, as sentences one and two seem to be in opposition to sentence three.

What I mean is that ESPN most likely doesn't have the cash to buy a huge inventory of each league. However, considering the amount of content that's going to be available from failing RSNs, ESPN could arrange it so they have a few options every night in each league that would satisfy the casual fan and make their DTC product must have for die-hards.

It wouldn't be the go-to for every game like the typical RSN was in recent years, but maybe they could have enough so as to corner the market. It would be hard for any other streamer to duplicate that anytime soon.

They sort of already tried this by having MLB and NHL add-ons for ESPN+, but there aren't many games on any given day. A lot of that is simply because most MLB, NBA, and NHL games were already wrapped up in RSN deals so local fans could watch every game. With the RSNs on life support, the dynamics and the availability of the content could change.

The keystone here would be the equity stake as a negotiating point. There will likely be more NFL content on ESPN platforms because the NFL will directly profit from it as opposed to just receiving rights fees. The same principle might work for all the leagues at the same time.

(01-13-2024 06:41 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 04:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sure what benefit having an equity stake in ESPN does the the NFL. The NFL’s bread and butter has always been on the content side. They have excellent content and they can capitalize on that content by keeping it scarce and and marketing it to multiple distributors. They had a foray into distribution already with the NFL Network and it ultimately proved more profitable to pull live content from their own distribution platform and repackage it for cash to another distributor desperate to get in on the game. Is ESPN expecting to get MNF for free or at a discount? And the NFL gets…? A cut in cable subscriber and ESPN+ fees?

Well, NFL would be investing in ESPN. If the value of ESPN goes up, NFL would get the appreciation.

But I suspect the biggest reason might be that NFL wants to join force with ESPN for steaming business. We all know the cable business is declining.

For example, would you pay for the following steaming bundle?

ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, Other minor ESPN channels
SECN, ACCN, ESPNU
NFL network

I pay $45 for Sling TV. If the ESPN bundle costs less than $30, I would switch.

Well, you listed 7 channels, the 8th would obviously be ESPN8, the Ocho.

(01-13-2024 08:15 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-12-2024 11:49 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-12-2024 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-12-2024 10:30 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2024/01/12/sports/esp...-tv-giant/

Quote: ESPN and the NFL are in advanced talks that could result in the league taking an equity stake in ESPN, The Post has learned.

As part of a potential agreement, Disney-owned ESPN would take control of NFL Media, which includes NFL Network, and the league would receive equity in ESPN.

For the long-term viability of ESPN aligning with the most powerful sports league would enhance its position as the network plans to move to direct to consumer by 2025.

While the idea of an ESPN-NFL alliance has been mentioned before, discussions between Disney-owned ESPN and the NFL are far enough along that sources said that owners and the Players Association are being informed about the talks.

May be relevant to college football if ESPN gains controls the NFL Network, maybe some games can be moved to NFL network on Saturdays?

It's relevant to both and it will free ESPN to make a larger bid on the playoffs. The NFL in a roundabout way is investing in their future as the upper tier is their lifeline to fresh faces and new players developed in the CFB upper tier. And this still doesn't rule out Apple's involvement.

It will have make those conviced FOX was the way to take note if it comes to pass.

This seems like a great deal for ESPN.

I think ESPN would have a very compelling portfolio for going direct to consumer.

Definitely appears that way, just wondering why the NFL is in the mood to save ESPN when it could have just let it fail and reap the benefits.

What is the NFL's benefit if ESPN fails? Fewer bidders on their next TV rights offering? Investing in ESPN allows the NFL to have more control over their future broadcasts, and the NFL doesn't have a cash flow problem so they could get paid in shares of Disney/ESPN/spinoff company/etc easily, they just need to agree upon how much they want and the value of what they want.