Espn is the most profitable division of Disney. I believe they represented 70% of Disney profit. While espn is likely to see some softness, they are not going insolvent. The networks are still bidding up contracts as speak.

(06-12-2016 10:10 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 09:47 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 08:40 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  Please read this article

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...tes-052816

ESPN is on the hook for $6 billion a year before it makes any $$. They have way overspent for TV rights and losing their customers at an alarming rate. ESPN is in serious cost-cutting mode and G5's will he squeezed before P5's.

this was an opinion piece and by someone in foxsports (espns competition) its stated no facts or expert opinion but a potential future scenerio.."espn is losing subscribers if it goes under 70mil subs they are in the red and i (clay travis ) don't think people will buy an online subscription"

Clay Travis is a sports journalist not a tv expert and i doubt working at fox he'd have any insight and from the article didn't claim he did
this was the equivalent of your OP

the obvious counter claim is that he is acting like espn/disney /abc are just going to watch it happen and there isnt a plan already in place..my response to that article is the same as my response to you..espn isnt losing subscribers cable is...espn growing in popularity

now you do me a favor and read this article, it is not a basic opinion piece like yours, it interviews numerous people in the field and gives insight
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/c...210219.php

ill give you a summary numerous former tv execs/marketing execs aren't worried. they think espn will be fine. tv deals will grow (but likely not at its current rate where teams are doubling value every few years). that fox and disney have too much money to fail, that if a day of reckoning comes itll likely more affect the smaller networks. they think the aac will get a raise our unexpected success and market locations put us in good shape

Why do think the financial analysts are harping on ESPN losing revenue and hurting Disney's valuation if Disney is just going to keep "plowing billions into ESPN"

ESPN Woes hurting Disney
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/09/investin...star-wars/

ESPN casts shadow over 'Star Wars' success at Disney
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-walt-d...SKCN0VI24S

Got nothing more for you Pesik if you can't understand how bad this is for ESPN and Disney

DID YOU READ ANY OF THE ARTICLES YOU LINKED???

not a single one expects espn to be bad shape long term but that espn needs to adjust its plan to move forward

but those articles simply said its worrisome but itll be fine,
these are quotes from your articles

"This notion that either the expanded basic bundle is experiencing its demise, or that ESPN is cratering in any way from a subscriber perspective, is just ridiculous," Iger said. "Sports is too popular."

"We fully expect our media networks, including ESPN to continue to deliver bottom-line growth, which means ad revenue growth will continue to outpace spending,"

the second article was basically saying espn needs to be more vocal about its succession plan outside cable

neither paints the picture of demise or decline

(06-12-2016 11:15 PM)banker Wrote:  pesik, you either are missing simple concepts, or your head's in the sand. This isn't about protecting the position of the AAC, which is what your arguments sound like.

It's just not that complicated. Everybody that has cable gets a bill every month. Whether that bill is $80 or $200 a month, about $8 of that goes directly from your cable provider to ESPN. If you cancel your cable subscription then your cable company doesn't get your money and ESPN doesn't get their $8.

Of the people who haven't, or won't, cut the cord less than half of them watch ESPN and wish they didn't have to pay for it. ESPN and Verizon are still in a legal battle because Verizon came out with a cable package which allowed subscribers to opt out of the ESPN family of channels. This is going to happen more, not less, as cable companies try to hold on to subscribers. They are going to offer more options, more ala carte, let the customer have more say. Personally, I think cable TV will be completely dead in 20 years. Live sports will all be streaming and purchased in a package or on a per event basis. Espn can still thrive in that environment, but they are going to know the exact value of each school and conference, which is going to be bad for almost every college.

my argument isnt about protecting the AAC but summarizing what industry professionals have said. that AAC line was part of the article it wasnt my saying

and i never said the transition would be easy, espn for months have said they intended to have a digital only option but would face heavy legal battles in its attempt..
the transition hasn't been smooth but 100% of every article ive read from an industry professional all say the same thing..espn will adjust
and 20 years ago the internet wasn't a thing for 96% of people, 20 years from now cable might be gone but something else will have taken its place and will likely be monetized by espn

read the link i posted, some of the interviewee say that espn has been projected doomed from the 80s, that every time some new format comes out everyone freaks out just to find out espn will be fine

(06-13-2016 07:09 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 10:10 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 09:47 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 08:40 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  Please read this article

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...tes-052816

ESPN is on the hook for $6 billion a year before it makes any $$. They have way overspent for TV rights and losing their customers at an alarming rate. ESPN is in serious cost-cutting mode and G5's will he squeezed before P5's.

this was an opinion piece and by someone in foxsports (espns competition) its stated no facts or expert opinion but a potential future scenerio.."espn is losing subscribers if it goes under 70mil subs they are in the red and i (clay travis ) don't think people will buy an online subscription"

Clay Travis is a sports journalist not a tv expert and i doubt working at fox he'd have any insight and from the article didn't claim he did
this was the equivalent of your OP

the obvious counter claim is that he is acting like espn/disney /abc are just going to watch it happen and there isnt a plan already in place..my response to that article is the same as my response to you..espn isnt losing subscribers cable is...espn growing in popularity

now you do me a favor and read this article, it is not a basic opinion piece like yours, it interviews numerous people in the field and gives insight
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/c...210219.php

ill give you a summary numerous former tv execs/marketing execs aren't worried. they think espn will be fine. tv deals will grow (but likely not at its current rate where teams are doubling value every few years). that fox and disney have too much money to fail, that if a day of reckoning comes itll likely more affect the smaller networks. they think the aac will get a raise our unexpected success and market locations put us in good shape

Why do think the financial analysts are harping on ESPN losing revenue and hurting Disney's valuation if Disney is just going to keep "plowing billions into ESPN"

ESPN Woes hurting Disney
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/09/investin...star-wars/

ESPN casts shadow over 'Star Wars' success at Disney
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-walt-d...SKCN0VI24S

Got nothing more for you Pesik if you can't understand how bad this is for ESPN and Disney

DID YOU READ ANY OF THE ARTICLES YOU LINKED???

not a single one expects espn to be bad shape long term but that espn needs to adjust its plan to move forward

but those articles simply said its worrisome but itll be fine,
these are quotes from your articles

"This notion that either the expanded basic bundle is experiencing its demise, or that ESPN is cratering in any way from a subscriber perspective, is just ridiculous," Iger said. "Sports is too popular."

"We fully expect our media networks, including ESPN to continue to deliver bottom-line growth, which means ad revenue growth will continue to outpace spending,"

the second article was basically saying espn needs to be more vocal about its succession plan outside cable

neither paints the picture of demise or decline

Oh, the CEO of Disney said that ESPN will be fine. There's a non-biased voice you can trust.

(06-13-2016 05:54 AM)GoBigGold Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 01:02 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 11:12 AM)Noodles Wrote:  Add COA.
Not enough money to make it worth it.

The COA will most likely be made up by increased $$ from guarantee games. These games are now paying $1.3-1.5M per game. This is up significantly from a few years ago when the payout was more in the $750k-1M range, the P5 are essentially paying for it.

And you don't see that as a step backwards?

Money games are almost always a loss. With the potential of costing us millions in Access Bowl money.

Therein lies the existing dichotomy. The conference talking point is better on the field performance to achieve more bonus dollars. However, individual teams can make just as much if not more money from playing one body bag game a year than they receive from G5 CFP distributions. The per team dollar differences are not great enough to outweigh one off games which as noted tend to decrease Access Bowl chances as well as make it more difficult to move up in G5 conference standings.