(03-02-2018 09:42 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Consider it this way. There are three viewing patterns for sports TV.

1. Big Game Viewers. Tune in for event programming because it's an event.
2. Loyal Fans. They will watch their team because it's their team.
3. Passive viewers. End of a long day, want to relax, flip on ESPN or related channels and are willing to watch almost anything.

ESPN+ isn't getting much from categories 1 and 3. WWE Network gets CAtegory 1 viewers, because their Big Events are on the Network. Sports hasn't gone in that direction (except for boxing and UFC, where PPV is still king).

That leaves category 2. And given the amount of games that are on ESPN/2/U/FS1, or your local RSN for your hometown MLB/NBA/NHL team, there's not a ton of viewers there for ESPN+. Sunday Ticket and its MLB/NBA/NHL cousins have the transplanted-diehard-fan market pretty well tapped for pro sports.

So ESPN+ is going to rely on
1. the diehard general sports fan, who will pretty much pay extra for any available sports content
2. Diehard fans of teams that don't have big enough fanbases to justify regular cable TV spots.

Music which hasn't had the propping up by cable companies like sports has with its advertising load is now doing 62% of its business from streaming.

https://www.recode.net/2017/9/20/1633948...bscription

Obviously there are more technical challenges with sports streaming that has delayed its evolution to that format but on demand streaming is the growth model. These are the kind of numbers media executives are looking at. They invest based on growth trends. That is why this cord cutting, while only slight as a percentage is sending the industry into an upheaval since its not longer a growth trend.

If the SBC has 500 live events on ESPN and the going rate is $200 per live event to the conference that is $1 million in revenue. Conferences are solving the inventory issue by offering an Olympic sport package. If those rates go up to $500 per live event on streaming service because of packaging in with MLB/MLS/NHL regional streams the SBC is making $2.5 million in revenue. This is the thinking behind ESPN+ to be able to leverage streaming of loyal pro fan bases.

Try to imagine a pure streaming future.

ESPN+, FOX+, CBS+, NBC+. Each are $7.99 for subscription.

You open the app and there are live and on-demand categories. You can select by sport and watch all the FBS games that you want.

Audience per game will be lower with the competition. Advertising rates will have to be negotiated per streaming app and not by distribution level (e.g. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2) on the strength of that streaming apps portfolio.

All of the money will be in the playoffs. Its already that way with the NCAA tournament but get ready for that to be the case with the CFP. That means an expansion of the CFP, a larger CFP contract ect.

P5s are not going to have enough die hard streamers to justify billion dollar TV packages like pro sports are able to do. Its more about alumni attending the game, then maybe very localized support.

(03-02-2018 11:01 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Try to imagine a pure streaming future.

ESPN+, FOX+, CBS+, NBC+. Each are $7.99 for subscription.

You open the app and there are live and on-demand categories. You can select by sport and watch all the FBS games that you want.

Audience per game will be lower with the competition. Advertising rates will have to be negotiated per streaming app and not by distribution level (e.g. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2) on the strength of that streaming apps portfolio.

All of the money will be in the playoffs. Its already that way with the NCAA tournament but get ready for that to be the case with the CFP. That means an expansion of the CFP, a larger CFP contract ect.

P5s are not going to have enough die hard streamers to justify billion dollar TV packages like pro sports are able to do. Its more about alumni attending the game, then maybe very localized support.

so does the sunbelt only get paid by how many stream a game?


Can you DVR a streamed game?


TV used to be so ******* simple...

(03-02-2018 11:01 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Try to imagine a pure streaming future.

ESPN+, FOX+, CBS+, NBC+. Each are $7.99 for subscription.

You open the app and there are live and on-demand categories. You can select by sport and watch all the FBS games that you want.

Audience per game will be lower with the competition. Advertising rates will have to be negotiated per streaming app and not by distribution level (e.g. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2) on the strength of that streaming apps portfolio.

All of the money will be in the playoffs. Its already that way with the NCAA tournament but get ready for that to be the case with the CFP. That means an expansion of the CFP, a larger CFP contract ect.

P5s are not going to have enough die hard streamers to justify billion dollar TV packages like pro sports are able to do. Its more about alumni attending the game, then maybe very localized support.

Interesting--Lets do a back of the napkin estimate. Lets say 10K from each Sunbelt school subscribe to ESPN-Plus (basically, Im saying football season tickets is a rough "give or take" proxy for ESPN-Plus subscribers).
Thats 100K subscribers. Plus maybe another 10K from the basketball only schools. That would mean the Sunbelt is worth about 6.5 million a year in subscription revenue. That doesnt count ad revenue, and doesnt reflect productions costs. So, lets say, given that much of the production will be handled by the schools, that ad revenue and production costs basically offset for ESPN. That means the Sunbelt is probably worth about 300K a school if we assume a 50/50 split between the conference and ESPN.

Just a thought----maybe one reason we arent hearing a number is because there isnt a firm number. Suppose ESPN says, we will give you $200K a school---plus a bonus based on number of people streaming your games. In that case, the Sunbelt knows its a raise--but they dont really know how much. That said, if this was the case, I think we would have at least heard something along the lines that "the SB has the opportunity for to share in the success of the platform with a bonus system".

(03-02-2018 11:54 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:01 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Try to imagine a pure streaming future.

ESPN+, FOX+, CBS+, NBC+. Each are $7.99 for subscription.

You open the app and there are live and on-demand categories. You can select by sport and watch all the FBS games that you want.

Audience per game will be lower with the competition. Advertising rates will have to be negotiated per streaming app and not by distribution level (e.g. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2) on the strength of that streaming apps portfolio.

All of the money will be in the playoffs. Its already that way with the NCAA tournament but get ready for that to be the case with the CFP. That means an expansion of the CFP, a larger CFP contract ect.

P5s are not going to have enough die hard streamers to justify billion dollar TV packages like pro sports are able to do. Its more about alumni attending the game, then maybe very localized support.

so does the sunbelt only get paid by how many stream a game?


Can you DVR a streamed game?


TV used to be so ******* simple...

ESPN is paying the SBC to include our content as part of their plus package. We get paid upfront, not by how many tune in.

On ESPN3 you can look up and replay any game that you missed so you don't have to set a DVR. I expect ESPN+ to be the same way if not better.

Streaming is so much more simple than cable tv

(03-02-2018 12:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:01 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Try to imagine a pure streaming future.

ESPN+, FOX+, CBS+, NBC+. Each are $7.99 for subscription.

You open the app and there are live and on-demand categories. You can select by sport and watch all the FBS games that you want.

Audience per game will be lower with the competition. Advertising rates will have to be negotiated per streaming app and not by distribution level (e.g. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2) on the strength of that streaming apps portfolio.

All of the money will be in the playoffs. Its already that way with the NCAA tournament but get ready for that to be the case with the CFP. That means an expansion of the CFP, a larger CFP contract ect.

P5s are not going to have enough die hard streamers to justify billion dollar TV packages like pro sports are able to do. Its more about alumni attending the game, then maybe very localized support.

Interesting--Lets do a back of the napkin estimate. Lets say 10K from each Sunbelt school subscribe to ESPN-Plus (basically, Im saying football season tickets is a rough "give or take" proxy for ESPN-Plus subscribers).
Thats 100K subscribers. Plus maybe another 10K from the basketball only schools. That would mean the Sunbelt is worth about 6.5 million a year in subscription revenue. That doesnt count ad revenue, and doesnt reflect productions costs. So, lets say, given that much of the production will be handled by the schools, that ad revenue and production costs basically offset for ESPN. That means the Sunbelt is probably worth about 300K a school if we assume a 50/50 split between the conference and ESPN.

Just a thought----maybe one reason we arent hearing a number is because there isnt a firm number. Suppose ESPN says, we will give you $200K a school---plus a bonus based on number of people streaming your games. In that case, the Sunbelt knows its a raise--but they dont really know how much. That said, if this was the case, I think we would have at least heard something along the lines that "the SB has the opportunity for to share in the success of the platform with a bonus system".

The last paragraph would be interesting. The Bonus system. I like paying on results

(03-01-2018 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the loss is notable. You are moving ESPN3 content to ESPN+. The ESPN3 casual viewer is a unicorn or bigfoot. People think it exists but its hard to spot and prove. Generally ESPN3 viewers open the app with the intention to watch a specific game.

Bigfoot here. If ESPN Goal Line isn't running (WHICH IS THE CASE WAY TOO OFTEN) I'll pull up WatchESPN so I can quad screen the games of highest interest. And ESPN better not make Goal Line a + feature. I don't want your damn soccer ESPN. I just want the college football. And I want it in one big set monthly bucket from one provider. If we're going to fragment everything into oblivion, then I will no longer be a casual CFB fan. I'll only watch ACC content, the end. And I suspect that's how most of us would end up. And that's bad for the MAC and Sun Belt most of all, because they were the biggest financial winners from having the casual fan midweek games.

(03-02-2018 09:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 02:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolschram...g-of-2018/

I think this is the Forbes article you were talking about. Lot of speculation in there. Some of it already wrong like MLS Live being available for purchase for those that didnt want ESPN Plus

If MLB.TV or NHL Game center were being rolled into ESPN Plus I think you would have heard something by now. I suspect these products will be available in the ESPN Plus app for additional purchase.

If ESPN+ is offering NHL and MLB where are those game rights coming from?

I wonder if it will be like FOX Sports GO is now. I can get the regional MLB and NHL games through it with my Direct TV subscription. So I can stream the Royals, Cardinals, and Blues but I can't any other teams.

(03-02-2018 01:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the loss is notable. You are moving ESPN3 content to ESPN+. The ESPN3 casual viewer is a unicorn or bigfoot. People think it exists but its hard to spot and prove. Generally ESPN3 viewers open the app with the intention to watch a specific game.

Bigfoot here. If ESPN Goal Line isn't running (WHICH IS THE CASE WAY TOO OFTEN) I'll pull up WatchESPN so I can quad screen the games of highest interest. And ESPN better not make Goal Line a + feature. I don't want your damn soccer ESPN. I just want the college football. And I want it in one big set monthly bucket from one provider. If we're going to fragment everything into oblivion, then I will no longer be a casual CFB fan. I'll only watch ACC content, the end. And I suspect that's how most of us would end up. And that's bad for the MAC and Sun Belt most of all, because they were the biggest financial winners from having the casual fan midweek games.

Yep, offering their games on + pay per view, to an interested audience most of whom will probably be within easy driving distance of the school where donations for tickets are not required and the tickets are much less expensive, is ESPN's way of saying we don't really want to discuss your value, but we will be happy to extend your contract in a manner that will prove to you why you are getting already what we are essentially willing to pay. If you increase your overhead with technology that makes our telecasts of your games more feasible and available and if you are willing to take the profits from those who will actually pay to watch, then sure we'll make all of your games available and give you a cut.

The way I read this ESPN is fronting very little and the Sun Belt schools have to pick up the overhead and then hope that the actual viewers cover the overhead. And they will at some schools, but will they at enough schools to cover the cost? It's dicey way to continue the contract, IMO.

(03-02-2018 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the loss is notable. You are moving ESPN3 content to ESPN+. The ESPN3 casual viewer is a unicorn or bigfoot. People think it exists but its hard to spot and prove. Generally ESPN3 viewers open the app with the intention to watch a specific game.

Bigfoot here. If ESPN Goal Line isn't running (WHICH IS THE CASE WAY TOO OFTEN) I'll pull up WatchESPN so I can quad screen the games of highest interest. And ESPN better not make Goal Line a + feature. I don't want your damn soccer ESPN. I just want the college football. And I want it in one big set monthly bucket from one provider. If we're going to fragment everything into oblivion, then I will no longer be a casual CFB fan. I'll only watch ACC content, the end. And I suspect that's how most of us would end up. And that's bad for the MAC and Sun Belt most of all, because they were the biggest financial winners from having the casual fan midweek games.

Yep, offering their games on + pay per view, to an interested audience most of whom will probably be within easy driving distance of the school where donations for tickets are not required and the tickets are much less expensive, is ESPN's way of saying we don't really want to discuss your value, but we will be happy to extend your contract in a manner that will prove to you why you are getting already what we are essentially willing to pay. If you increase your overhead with technology that makes our telecasts of your games more feasible and available and if you are willing to take the profits from those who will actually pay to watch, then sure we'll make all of your games available and give you a cut.

The way I read this ESPN is fronting very little and the Sun Belt schools have to pick up the overhead and then hope that the actual viewers cover the overhead. And they will at some schools, but will they at enough schools to cover the cost? It's dicey way to continue the contract, IMO.

The schools aren't paying for the equipment upgrades. That's covered by the new deal.

(03-02-2018 01:58 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the loss is notable. You are moving ESPN3 content to ESPN+. The ESPN3 casual viewer is a unicorn or bigfoot. People think it exists but its hard to spot and prove. Generally ESPN3 viewers open the app with the intention to watch a specific game.

Bigfoot here. If ESPN Goal Line isn't running (WHICH IS THE CASE WAY TOO OFTEN) I'll pull up WatchESPN so I can quad screen the games of highest interest. And ESPN better not make Goal Line a + feature. I don't want your damn soccer ESPN. I just want the college football. And I want it in one big set monthly bucket from one provider. If we're going to fragment everything into oblivion, then I will no longer be a casual CFB fan. I'll only watch ACC content, the end. And I suspect that's how most of us would end up. And that's bad for the MAC and Sun Belt most of all, because they were the biggest financial winners from having the casual fan midweek games.

Yep, offering their games on + pay per view, to an interested audience most of whom will probably be within easy driving distance of the school where donations for tickets are not required and the tickets are much less expensive, is ESPN's way of saying we don't really want to discuss your value, but we will be happy to extend your contract in a manner that will prove to you why you are getting already what we are essentially willing to pay. If you increase your overhead with technology that makes our telecasts of your games more feasible and available and if you are willing to take the profits from those who will actually pay to watch, then sure we'll make all of your games available and give you a cut.

The way I read this ESPN is fronting very little and the Sun Belt schools have to pick up the overhead and then hope that the actual viewers cover the overhead. And they will at some schools, but will they at enough schools to cover the cost? It's dicey way to continue the contract, IMO.

The schools aren't paying for the equipment upgrades. That's covered by the new deal.

Then it at least gets you ready to control more of your own future past the contract. With the SEC and ACC we had to cover the upgrades. If ESPN is fronting it that's a good plus.

Talking about this, the one-bid basketball leagues are going to be changed majorly. We’ve seen this already with the CAA. Two seasons ago the CAA had 6 linear games on NBCSN, including the semifinals and finals of the conference tourney, and regular season games in February. Comcast Sports Net often carried two games on Saturday, the quarterfinals of the conference tourney, and usually ASN’s games would air there as well.

In 2010-11, the CAA had 32 games on Comcast, and 25 more on ESPN networks. Now the only package for the entire league is one weekly game on CBS’s College Sports Live platform, and the semis and finals of the men’s basketball tourney on CBSSN, which they had to pay for. The majority of the games are on CAA.tv online. It’s coming for the other leagues.

(03-02-2018 12:18 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:54 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:01 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Try to imagine a pure streaming future.

ESPN+, FOX+, CBS+, NBC+. Each are $7.99 for subscription.

You open the app and there are live and on-demand categories. You can select by sport and watch all the FBS games that you want.

Audience per game will be lower with the competition. Advertising rates will have to be negotiated per streaming app and not by distribution level (e.g. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2) on the strength of that streaming apps portfolio.

All of the money will be in the playoffs. Its already that way with the NCAA tournament but get ready for that to be the case with the CFP. That means an expansion of the CFP, a larger CFP contract ect.

P5s are not going to have enough die hard streamers to justify billion dollar TV packages like pro sports are able to do. Its more about alumni attending the game, then maybe very localized support.

so does the sunbelt only get paid by how many stream a game?


Can you DVR a streamed game?


TV used to be so ******* simple...

ESPN is paying the SBC to include our content as part of their plus package. We get paid upfront, not by how many tune in.

On ESPN3 you can look up and replay any game that you missed so you don't have to set a DVR. I expect ESPN+ to be the same way if not better.

Streaming is so much more simple than cable tv

Thanks.

(03-02-2018 09:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:49 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 10:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:13 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 06:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If all you are doing is moving ESPN3 content over to the new product and adding more of it, $60 a year is a hard sell if you are hoping to retain those subscribers in April, May, June, July, and August with just MLS content.

ESPN is seeing an erosion of carriage fee dollars that they would like to replace somehow. MLS and Sun Belt won't make that up.

If you are going to get all the non-duplicated MLS, NHL, and MLB subscribers you are going to have 4 million subscribers and generate $240 million so the risk is here is you pick up no new subscribers on products generating probably $500million very very optimistically generating $600 million.

It's a $260 million risk. Turner and CBS are putting $700 million a year into a the proven NCAA Tournament.

There is the ultra safe approach which is everything is status quo except moving some ESPN3 content to ESPN+ for $4.99 a month.

Then there is we want to be the Netflix of sports approach.

Netflix is shelling out $8 billion for original content in 2018.

If you want to be the Netflix of sports, $260 million looks damn cheap.

I think ultimately Netflix of sports is the long term goal

Netflix has just under 55 million subscribers in the US. I think this will be lucky to get the close to 2 million the WWE Network has worldwide until they put more premium content on it

Viewership for WWE Raw this year on USA.
1/1/18: 2,865,000

1/8/18: 2,759,000

1/15/18: 3,250,000

1/22/18: 4,530,000

1/29/18: 3,394,000

2/5/18: 3,055,000

I’d say pushing 2 million subscribers is a phenomenal feat.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's more viewers than most, if not all, of the ESPN Plus content though.

If a program with average viewership of 3.2 million is only getting slightly over 1 million US subscribers for their OTT offering with massive amounts of premium content, how will ESPN Plus beat that?

I think a good comparison to ESPN Plus will be UFC.TV. No premium content on that either, strictly for the diehards

You are comparing niche (WWE) to several major sports and doubling down by comparing yet another niche (UFC). What the UFC or WWE fan in Seattle wants to see is the same stuff the UFC and WWE fan in Atlanta wants to see.
What the college football fan in New Orleans wants to see doesn't overlap a great deal with the fan in Chicago.

We will see. For $5 a month I get the feeling this will be a trial run. If they were going to throw MLB or NHL out of market on there, they would be starting this at around $10/month at least.

(03-02-2018 02:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  Talking about this, the one-bid basketball leagues are going to be changed majorly. We’ve seen this already with the CAA. Two seasons ago the CAA had 6 linear games on NBCSN, including the semifinals and finals of the conference tourney, and regular season games in February. Comcast Sports Net often carried two games on Saturday, the quarterfinals of the conference tourney, and usually ASN’s games would air there as well.

In 2010-11, the CAA had 32 games on Comcast, and 25 more on ESPN networks. Now the only package for the entire league is one weekly game on CBS’s College Sports Live platform, and the semis and finals of the men’s basketball tourney on CBSSN, which they had to pay for. The majority of the games are on CAA.tv online. It’s coming for the other leagues.

Then at the same time you are seeing the G5 conferences courting non-FB schools to increase the perceived value of their basketball package.

My interpretation is it won't be long before we see the WCC, MVC and perhaps even the A10 off of linear TV.

(03-02-2018 04:23 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 02:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  Talking about this, the one-bid basketball leagues are going to be changed majorly. We’ve seen this already with the CAA. Two seasons ago the CAA had 6 linear games on NBCSN, including the semifinals and finals of the conference tourney, and regular season games in February. Comcast Sports Net often carried two games on Saturday, the quarterfinals of the conference tourney, and usually ASN’s games would air there as well.

In 2010-11, the CAA had 32 games on Comcast, and 25 more on ESPN networks. Now the only package for the entire league is one weekly game on CBS’s College Sports Live platform, and the semis and finals of the men’s basketball tourney on CBSSN, which they had to pay for. The majority of the games are on CAA.tv online. It’s coming for the other leagues.

Then at the same time you are seeing the G5 conferences courting non-FB schools to increase the perceived value of their basketball package.

My interpretation is it won't be long before we see the WCC, MVC and perhaps even the A10 off of linear TV.

If the WCC loses Gonzaga and BYU odds of them keeping linerar tv: 0.
MVC: with no more losses, I think they keep some games on linear tv.
A10: if they lose a couple schools they probably still keep a few games on tv. There’s too many solid names in the a10 to lose out.
The WCC is absolutely done if Gonzaga is gone. Just a conference without fans

(03-02-2018 08:04 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:23 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 02:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  Talking about this, the one-bid basketball leagues are going to be changed majorly. We’ve seen this already with the CAA. Two seasons ago the CAA had 6 linear games on NBCSN, including the semifinals and finals of the conference tourney, and regular season games in February. Comcast Sports Net often carried two games on Saturday, the quarterfinals of the conference tourney, and usually ASN’s games would air there as well.

In 2010-11, the CAA had 32 games on Comcast, and 25 more on ESPN networks. Now the only package for the entire league is one weekly game on CBS’s College Sports Live platform, and the semis and finals of the men’s basketball tourney on CBSSN, which they had to pay for. The majority of the games are on CAA.tv online. It’s coming for the other leagues.

Then at the same time you are seeing the G5 conferences courting non-FB schools to increase the perceived value of their basketball package.

My interpretation is it won't be long before we see the WCC, MVC and perhaps even the A10 off of linear TV.

If the WCC loses Gonzaga and BYU odds of them keeping linerar tv: 0.
MVC: with no more losses, I think they keep some games on linear tv.
A10: if they lose a couple schools they probably still keep a few games on tv. There’s too many solid names in the a10 to lose out.
The WCC is absolutely done if Gonzaga is gone. Just a conference without fans

The A-10 linear package is currently 3x the size of the MVC.

They'll be cut back significantly to make way for AAC, MWC and maybe even a resurgent CUSA to some extent. The deal the A10 signed was right after they added Butler momentarily back in 2012. Butler right off its Final Four runs.

The ESPNU/CBSSN/NBCSN type channels are bound to become ESPN+/CBS+/NBC+ to simplify for bundle sake.

(03-02-2018 08:18 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:04 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:23 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 02:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  Talking about this, the one-bid basketball leagues are going to be changed majorly. We’ve seen this already with the CAA. Two seasons ago the CAA had 6 linear games on NBCSN, including the semifinals and finals of the conference tourney, and regular season games in February. Comcast Sports Net often carried two games on Saturday, the quarterfinals of the conference tourney, and usually ASN’s games would air there as well.

In 2010-11, the CAA had 32 games on Comcast, and 25 more on ESPN networks. Now the only package for the entire league is one weekly game on CBS’s College Sports Live platform, and the semis and finals of the men’s basketball tourney on CBSSN, which they had to pay for. The majority of the games are on CAA.tv online. It’s coming for the other leagues.

Then at the same time you are seeing the G5 conferences courting non-FB schools to increase the perceived value of their basketball package.

My interpretation is it won't be long before we see the WCC, MVC and perhaps even the A10 off of linear TV.

If the WCC loses Gonzaga and BYU odds of them keeping linerar tv: 0.
MVC: with no more losses, I think they keep some games on linear tv.
A10: if they lose a couple schools they probably still keep a few games on tv. There’s too many solid names in the a10 to lose out.
The WCC is absolutely done if Gonzaga is gone. Just a conference without fans

The A-10 linear package is currently 3x the size of the MVC.

They'll be cut back significantly to make way for AAC, MWC and maybe even a resurgent CUSA to some extent. The deal the A10 signed was right after they added Butler momentarily back in 2012. Butler right off its Final Four runs.

The ESPNU/CBSSN/NBCSN type channels are bound to become ESPN+/CBS+/NBC+ to simplify for bundle sake.

Right now satellite and cable are dedicating capacity sub channels and rarely used channels for sports like the channels to show all Premier League games for NBC.

They will possibly get into the monetization game as well. For example you can buy Extra Innings and it includes MLB.tv. Now I’m not paying that premium but a good friend does. He doesn’t like streaming at home if he can avoid it because he will get a push notice about a home run before it appears on the screen.

You have Internet and mobile and cable/sat providers including subscriptions to streaming services.

An interesting theory a friend has about MLB.tv and NHL Game Center.
He thinks ESPN may offer those services to ESPN+ subscribers for like $20 a season extra like an HBO add on for streaming services to get subscribers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-02-2018 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the loss is notable. You are moving ESPN3 content to ESPN+. The ESPN3 casual viewer is a unicorn or bigfoot. People think it exists but its hard to spot and prove. Generally ESPN3 viewers open the app with the intention to watch a specific game.

Bigfoot here. If ESPN Goal Line isn't running (WHICH IS THE CASE WAY TOO OFTEN) I'll pull up WatchESPN so I can quad screen the games of highest interest. And ESPN better not make Goal Line a + feature. I don't want your damn soccer ESPN. I just want the college football. And I want it in one big set monthly bucket from one provider. If we're going to fragment everything into oblivion, then I will no longer be a casual CFB fan. I'll only watch ACC content, the end. And I suspect that's how most of us would end up. And that's bad for the MAC and Sun Belt most of all, because they were the biggest financial winners from having the casual fan midweek games.

Yep, offering their games on + pay per view, to an interested audience most of whom will probably be within easy driving distance of the school where donations for tickets are not required and the tickets are much less expensive, is ESPN's way of saying we don't really want to discuss your value, but we will be happy to extend your contract in a manner that will prove to you why you are getting already what we are essentially willing to pay. If you increase your overhead with technology that makes our telecasts of your games more feasible and available and if you are willing to take the profits from those who will actually pay to watch, then sure we'll make all of your games available and give you a cut.

The way I read this ESPN is fronting very little and the Sun Belt schools have to pick up the overhead and then hope that the actual viewers cover the overhead. And they will at some schools, but will they at enough schools to cover the cost? It's dicey way to continue the contract, IMO.

I've paid to watch several conference road games and the broadcast quality of some is downright pitiful. We are fortunate that when the Athletics Center was built in 2009 it was wired plug in play HD ready and the stadium lights were designed to support HD broadcasts. The picture is major network quality. A few years ago the school ran HD cables from the Holmes Center to the AC which improved the basketball/volleyball games to the same level. There is a audio/video studio in the AC for editing, mixing and broadcasting games, but it does not have full blown production capabilities. We could use some new cameras, but once the production facility is upgraded App will be in great shape.