ESPN "staggering subscriber losses"...

[topdecktiger]

Made it pretty clear, belowdeck.

Yeah.....I saw that the first time. I also made it pretty clear, well before you made that post, that I was talking about subscribers, not viewers. You started arguing with me long before you made that specific post.

Your whole argument about viewers is pointless, given that the topic of this thread is about ESPN losing subscribers. It even says that in the title.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Yes, it does matter. Your argument is that ESPN is losing subscribers because people are unhappy with the network. That's simply not true. It's because people are dropping their cable packages for more economical alternatives. This is happing to everyone, not just ESPN.



No, consumers don't have this option. Consumers of cable are presented with various pre-arranged packages. (They can't create their own packages.) Most of these packages have Disney/ESPN included. There are a few that don't. However, these are bare-bones packages. The typical cable package includes Disney/ESPN channels.

FS1 doesn't charge anywhere as much as ESPN. ESPN charges $7 per month, vs. 99¢ for FS1. Here's the point. All this bluster of your is not answering the OP's question. He was asking if ESPN's content would just get spread out over other networks like FS1. Well, the answer is clearly no. At just 99¢ per subscriber, FS1 has nowhere near enough money to take over those rights from ESPN. The only way it would be possible is for the conferences to take a gigantic pay cut. That goes to the OP's other question, which was will this development affect large conferences? The answer is, it's certainly possible.

For some reason, you and a couple of other posters can't seem to get it through your heads that my responses on this topic are in the context of the OP's question.



None of that has anything to do with my point. You making this out to be more than it is. It's very simple. Many customers are switching to internet-based mediums, rather that traditional cable delivery. That's what's causing ESPN and other networks to lose subscribers. It's really that simple.



No, the reconfigured Big 12 has no ring of plausibility. Taking the same teams ESPN already has under contract, and repackaging them into a different conference does nothing to solve the problem of losing subscribers. If ESPN goes to streaming, they could just do that now with the conferences as they already are.



I said, "the phenomenon of cord cutting is because many people (particularly younger ones), find it easier and cheaper to buy alternatives to cable or satellite." This is entirely correct. (You just restated the same thing I said.) Young people who have never had cable before aren't part of the lost subscribers for ESPN. The lost subscribers are only people who used to have cable/ESPN, but then dropped it. People who have never had cable are not figured into the lost subscriber statistics that have been posted.

FIOS isn't cable. The same type of packages aren't available for cable subscribers, which is the actual topic of discussion.

FIOS uses the same bundling model.

I had FIOS. They put a big box in my basement, but I assumed it was run to the standard copper cable.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Yeah.....I saw that the first time. I also made it pretty clear, well before you made that post, that I was talking about subscribers, not viewers. You started arguing with me long before you made that specific post.

Your whole argument about viewers is pointless, given that the topic of this thread is about ESPN losing subscribers. It even says that in the title.

If you saw it the first time, why did you keep responding as if you didnt?

 

[topdecktiger]

If you saw it the first time, why did you keep responding as if you didnt?

Because the topic of the thread is subscribers, not viewers.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Because the topic of the thread is subscribers, not viewers.

You just didn't read it and have too much pride to admit it.

 

[topdecktiger]

You just didn't read it and have too much pride to admit it.

No, that's completely stupid, and I'll show you why.

In my very first post on this thread (addressed to another poster, not you), I was talking about subscribers. You chose to respond to me.

Well, given that you were responding to what I said, the discussion was about subscribers, not viewers.

Additionally, you made 6 separate responses to me, before you made the post about subscribers vs. viewers. It's painfully clear our discussion was about subscribers. You threw in the part about viewers mid-stream.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Top Deck is full of himself.

No, consumers don't have this option.

FIOS .... The same type of packages aren't available for cable subscribers, which is the actual topic of discussion.

Wrong. There are people who subscribe to cable, and cable type services, who have the option of not including the ESPN package. This whole discussion at this point is just a matter of you trying to cover your tracks. You're just wrong.

It is true that some have misinterpreted things you have said ... but that doesn't mean that you haven't been fundamentally wrong.

And the story of ESPN "exploring" the possibility of a reconfigured B12 is very plausible. Doesn't mean it will happen. But with ESPN losing money and facing the likelihood of losing a lot more it is extremely plausible that they would explore all kinds of possibilities.

You're just so full of yourself that there is little reason to keep responding to you. You'll just blather on and on just to get the last word. But you fool no one but yourself.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

No, that's completely stupid, and I'll show you why.

In my very first post on this thread (addressed to another poster, not you), I was talking about subscribers. You chose to respond to me.

Well, given that you were responding to what I said, the discussion was about subscribers, not viewers.

Additionally, you made 6 separate responses to me, before you made the post about subscribers vs. viewers. It's painfully clear our discussion was about subscribers. You threw in the part about viewers mid-stream.

Yes. I made it very clear. I will repost it for a third time if it would.

You just couldn't keep up, and fell behind.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Perhaps not subscribers, but certainly viewers.

How could I have made it anymore clear?

Belowdeck is a desperate ESPN shill.....sad little dude. Begging folks to subscribe to his unwanted channel.

LOL - moral obligation...ha!

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

Cable subscriber totals peaked in 2000 at 68.5 million.

It has shrunk steadily to satellite dish and other competition.

By 2014 it was down to 53.7 million.

That’s a 22% shrinkage for ALL cable.

It’s not surprising that ESPN and others lost ground, too.

But ESPN lost 621,00 subscribers in October ALONE, the worst in its history. And cost ESPN $52 million, which means college football will have trouble escalating payments for coverage of its games.

It cost you $7 a month for ESPN, whether you get it or not, because that’s what cable systems pay and they are going to get that money from you, one way or the other.

ESPN is on the hook for the following yearly sports rights payments: $1.9 billion a year to the NFL for Monday Night Football, $1.47 billion to the NBA, $700 million to Major League Baseball, $608 million for the College Football Playoff, $225 million to the ACC, $190 million to the Big Ten, $120 million to the Big 12, $125 million a year to the PAC 12, and hundreds of millions more to the SEC.

Maybe they can pull a Donald Trump and just refuse to pay?

 

[topdecktiger]

Top Deck is full of himself.

Wrong. There are people who subscribe to cable, and cable type services, who have the option of not including the ESPN package. This whole discussion at this point is just a matter of you trying to cover your tracks. You're just wrong.

It is true that some have misinterpreted things you have said ... but that doesn't mean that you haven't been fundamentally wrong.

And the story of ESPN "exploring" the possibility of a reconfigured B12 is very plausible. Doesn't mean it will happen. But with ESPN losing money and facing the likelihood of losing a lot more it is extremely plausible that they would explore all kinds of possibilities.

You're just so full of yourself that there is little reason to keep responding to you. You'll just blather on and on just to get the last word. But you fool no one but yourself.

No, you are incorrect. You are yourself misinterpreting what I said. Cable subscribers do NOT have the option of including ESPN. Cable companies do NOT offer a la carte options. What cable companies actually do is offer a few pre-determined packages, and you only get to choose from those.

Let's say "Cable X" company offers 5 packages. The cable company itself has determined which channels are included with each of the 5 packages. That's all you get to choose from, is just the 5 packages. You don't get to choose which channels make up the 5 packages.

The point being, a cable customer cannot choose whether or not they want ESPN. They can only choose between packages, which either do or don't include ESPN.

Now, here is my point. Most of the cable packages that don't include ESPN don't include most other popular channels either. They are just bare-bones packages. Not many people buy those packages. The overwhelming majority of cable packages purchased by customers are the ones that include ESPN and other such channels.

So in other words, people aren't going to buy a low-grade cable package just to avoid ESPN. They will either simply not watch ESPN, or they will dump cable and get an alternative provider, with different options.

The rumor of ESPN and this revamped Big 12 is not plausible at all. Here is why. Your idea of a revamped Big 12 does nothing to solve ESPN's problems. It doesn't stop them from losing subscribers. It doesn't stop them from losing money. It doesn't somehow make it easier for them to convert to streaming. It literally does nothing to help ESPN.

Of course, that rumor is also contingent on the Big 12 raiding Big Ten teams (mainly Nebraska), and that in itself is a pipe dream. The Big Ten is the highest paying conference in the country. (Plus there is still the issue of the GOR.) The necessary schools simply have no incentive to even attempt such a move (which is why you don't see it coming anywhere close to even happening).

Yes. I made it very clear. I will repost it for a third time if it would.

You just couldn't keep up, and fell behind.

Yeah, and again, I saw that the first time. As I said, here is your problem. You've been arguing with me long before you said that, and I was talking about subscribers (not viewers) the whole time. Here are the first 6 posts you made to me, before you issued your little "clarification"

And the response is more affordable, trimmed down packages that cut back on the heavy sports burden that most consumers don't want.

It is an industry wide problem, but ESPN carries the highest liabilities due to their long term contracts.

I wouldn't care.

Duh.

It's not my fault ESPN overwhelmed their balance sheet with enormous future liabilities.

Topdecktiger always argues that consumers have a moral obligation to buy large cable packages.

Everytime this topic is mentioned, you turn up like a bad penny and start shilling for ESPN.

You are a shill. Why and for what reason, I do not know but you are definitely a shill for ESPN.

It's clear as day.

Your professional fate might be tied to ESPN, or cable, but that's your problem.

It's not personal, I felt the same way about Blockbuster.

See, you made six, count 'em, six posts, when the whole discussion was about subscribers. Again, if your argument has been about viewers from the beginning, then it was stupid for you to make these six posts, because I was never talking about viewers when you made these responses. You were arguing with someone who was discussing a completely different topic. Not to smart.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

No, you are incorrect. You are yourself misinterpreting what I said. Cable subscribers do NOT have the option of including ESPN. Cable companies do NOT offer a la carte options. What cable companies actually do is offer a few pre-determined packages, and you only get to choose from those.

Let's say "Cable X" company offers 5 packages. The cable company itself has determined which channels are included with each of the 5 packages. That's all you get to choose from, is just the 5 packages. You don't get to choose which channels make up the 5 packages.

The point being, a cable customer cannot choose whether or not they want ESPN. They can only choose between packages, which either do or don't include ESPN.

Now, here is my point. Most of the cable packages that don't include ESPN don't include most other popular channels either. They are just bare-bones packages. Not many people buy those packages. The overwhelming majority of cable packages purchased by customers are the ones that include ESPN and other such channels.

So in other words, people aren't going to buy a low-grade cable package just to avoid ESPN. They will either simply not watch ESPN, or they will dump cable and get an alternative provider, with different options.

The rumor of ESPN and this revamped Big 12 is not plausible at all. Here is why. Your idea of a revamped Big 12 does nothing to solve ESPN's problems. It doesn't stop them from losing subscribers. It doesn't stop them from losing money. It doesn't somehow make it easier for them to convert to streaming. It literally does nothing to help ESPN.

Of course, that rumor is also contingent on the Big 12 raiding Big Ten teams (mainly Nebraska), and that in itself is a pipe dream. The Big Ten is the highest paying conference in the country. (Plus there is still the issue of the GOR.) The necessary schools simply have no incentive to even attempt such a move (which is why you don't see it coming anywhere close to even happening).



Yeah, and again, I saw that the first time. As I said, here is your problem. You've been arguing with me long before you said that, and I was talking about subscribers (not viewers) the whole time. Here are the first 6 posts you made to me, before you issued your little "clarification"













See, you made six, count 'em, six posts, when the whole discussion was about subscribers. Again, if your argument has been about viewers from the beginning, then it was stupid for you to make these six posts, because I was never talking about viewers when you made these responses. You were arguing with someone who was discussing a completely different topic. Not to smart.

Not "too" smart.

Thank you for repeating my quotes, and displaying my rather easy path to victory on this discussion.

I suppose not everyone can jungle multiple, related topics at once in the same discussion....I just make it look easy, I know.

I responded to a post, and was very clear in my reply. You chimped out, as always, and went full-shill.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Each month, ESPN has fewer and fewer subscribers, and among those subscribers left, fewer of them actually watch the channel because they've turned the network into dog shit.

Everytime a bell rings, a customer cuts their cord....MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

So in other words, people aren't going to buy a low-grade cable package just to avoid ESPN. They will either simply not watch ESPN, or they will dump cable and get an alternative provider, with different options.

That's nice .... but I never said that people are going to buy a smaller package just to avoid ESPN. They'll buy a smaller package to avoid the higher cost and that means they'll give up ESPN and a bunch of other channels in order to save money. AND ESPN becomes the biggest loser because they charge so much to be included in a package.

People can subscribe to some cable packages that do not include ESPN. And more people are interested in these options. I even linked you up with Fios' new options. And you said ahem ... that Fios isn't cable. Good grief. Whatever.

You said consumers have no choice. You are, have been, and continue to be WRONG!
Bottom line ... ESPN is experiencing staggering losses in subscribers and revenue. And they have and will continue to explore alternatives to bring that revenue back..... or at least some of it.

Further ... you used to pooh-pooh cable cutting. And now you act like you are informing us about it.

 

[topdecktiger]

Not "too" smart.

Thank you for repeating my quotes, and displaying my rather easy path to victory on this discussion.

I suppose not everyone can jungle multiple, related topics at once in the same discussion....I just make it look easy, I know.

I responded to a post, and was very clear in my reply. You chimped out, as always, and went full-shill.

No, here's what you did. I started from the very beginning, saying that ESPN wasn't losing subscribers because of bias/politics or whatever. You argued with me about this. Then, midway through the conversation, you switched and said you were talking about viewers, not subscribers. You made your "clear reply" halfway into the conversation, not from the beginning. So in other words, when you were proven wrong, you changed your position. Well, I didn't change with you. I kept to the original topic, because that's frankly the only thing I'm interested in. If you want to start a conversation about viewers, I really don't give a shit about that topic.

That's nice .... but I never said that people are going to buy a smaller package just to avoid ESPN. They'll buy a smaller package to avoid the higher cost and that means they'll give up ESPN and a bunch of other channels in order to save money. AND ESPN becomes the biggest loser because they charge so much to be included in a package.

People can subscribe to some cable packages that do not include ESPN. And more people are interested in these options. I even linked you up with Fios' new options. And you said ahem ... that Fios isn't cable. Good grief. Whatever.

You said consumers have no choice. You are, have been, and continue to be WRONG!
Bottom line ... ESPN is experiencing staggering losses in subscribers and revenue. And they have and will continue to explore alternatives to bring that revenue back..... or at least some of it.

Further ... you used to pooh-pooh cable cutting. And now you act like you are informing us about it.

Yeah, I know you never said people are going to buy smaller packages just to avoid ESPN. I'm the one that said that. See, this is the problem. You are arguing with me about points I'm not even making in the first place.

Here has been my whole point from the very beginning. Some other posters were saying ESPN was losing subscribers because bias/politics/whatever. I said that's not the case. ESPN is losing subscribers simply because of cord cutting.

That's it. That's been my only point all along. Why you and the other guy feel the need to argue that so insistently, I have no idea.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

No, here's what you did. I started from the very beginning, saying that ESPN wasn't losing subscribers because of bias/politics or whatever. You argued with me about this. Then, midway through the conversation, you switched and said you were talking about viewers, not subscribers. You made your "clear reply" halfway into the conversation, not from the beginning. So in other words, when you were proven wrong, you changed your position. Well, I didn't change with you. I kept to the original topic, because that's frankly the only thing I'm interested in. If you want to start a conversation about viewers, I really don't give a shit about that topic.



Yeah, I know you never said people are going to buy smaller packages just to avoid ESPN. I'm the one that said that. See, this is the problem. You are arguing with me about points I'm not even making in the first place.

Here has been my whole point from the very beginning. Some other posters were saying ESPN was losing subscribers because bias/politics/whatever. I said that's not the case. ESPN is losing subscribers simply because of cord cutting.

That's it. That's been my only point all along. Why you and the other guy feel the need to argue that so insistently, I have no idea.

You said consumers have no choice when it comes to not having ESPN other than cutting the cable. But they can keep a basic cable package without ESPN.
You say virtually no one chooses the smaller packages without ESPN. But there is a growing market for these smaller packages because of cable cutting and people who will happily pay less and not have ESPN and a bunch of other channels they don't want.

My point in arguing with you is that you pooh-poohed cable cutting 2-3 months ago when I first posted about it and the losses that ESPN was experiencing. You also said, and continue to say, that it is not plausible that ESPN was at least investigating a reconfigured B12.

You were wrong to begin with and now that you are catching up to the reality of the market you continue to be wrong about certain things.

But all in all .... it doesn't really matter what you and I think. The market will decide the future of broadcast video of sports.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

I don't watch ESPN anymore because of the political discussions and yellers like Stephen A. Smith.

I have never watched ESPN for anything other that watching a game. The rest of their programming I never have watched. I only watch FS1 or CBSS or NBCS for a game never anything else. And it will be a long time before everyone gets good enough internet speed or cell service to replace cable for everyone. There are plenty of people in WV that do not have cell service in their own homes. I have to travel at least 5 miles to get cell service. And that is spotty.

 

[topdecktiger]

You said consumers have no choice when it comes to not having ESPN other than cutting the cable. But they can keep a basic cable package without ESPN.
You say virtually no one chooses the smaller packages without ESPN. But there is a growing market for these smaller packages because of cable cutting and people who will happily pay less and not have ESPN and a bunch of other channels they don't want.

My point in arguing with you is that you pooh-poohed cable cutting 2-3 months ago when I first posted about it and the losses that ESPN was experiencing. You also said, and continue to say, that it is not plausible that ESPN was at least investigating a reconfigured B12.

You were wrong to begin with and now that you are catching up to the reality of the market you continue to be wrong about certain things.

But all in all .... it doesn't really matter what you and I think. The market will decide the future of broadcast video of sports.

Yes, that's true. They don't have a choice. Cable customers can only chose from the packages offered by the cable companies. That's 100% true.

The smaller packages offered by the cable companies are dog shit. I agree with you that cord cutters are looking for smaller packages from other mediums. That's the key, from other mediums. You can get these packages (from Sling TV for example) that have various channels. However, the bottom-end packages offered by the cable companies aren't as good as those. The bottom-end packages offered by the cable companies suck. That's why people are cord cutting. Otherwise, they would keep their cable subscription, but just get a smaller package. They wouldn't completely cut the cord.

If you read the articles posted on this thread, they clearly state that this is industry wide. OK, well if it's industry wide, that means people aren't simply getting smaller cable packages. They are dropping cable entirely. Those articles further state that this isn't just happing to ESPN. Most other channels are experiencing big drops in subscribers as well. Ok, well if people were only dropping ESPN, then other channels would not be experiencing drops in subscribers. Well, what that shows you is that this drop in subscribers isn't some rebellion against ESPN. There is no way you can claim otherwise, given the information that is being reported.

It's not plausible that ESPN was investigating a reconfigured Big 12. That was nothing but a rumor. It hasn't been backed up by any credible evidence at all. You can't claim something is/was plausible unless you have at least some basic evidence to prove it was happening. That's especially true when the rumor involves something as stupid as Nebraska leaving the Big Ten.

Regarding what I said 2-3 months ago, post exactly what I said. You've already misrepresented what I said on just in this thread, so no, I'm not taking anything you say about comments I made 3 months ago at face value unless you show me what I actually said.

 

[79eer]

Having trouble following you guys, who said what etc., could you start from the beginning again?

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Yes, that's true. They don't have a choice. Cable customers can only chose from the packages offered by the cable companies. That's 100% true.

The smaller packages offered by the cable companies are dog shit. I agree with you that cord cutters are looking for smaller packages from other mediums. That's the key, from other mediums. You can get these packages (from Sling TV for example) that have various channels. However, the bottom-end packages offered by the cable companies aren't as good as those. The bottom-end packages offered by the cable companies suck. That's why people are cord cutting. Otherwise, they would keep their cable subscription, but just get a smaller package. They wouldn't completely cut the cord.

If you read the articles posted on this thread, they clearly state that this is industry wide. OK, well if it's industry wide, that means people aren't simply getting smaller cable packages. They are dropping cable entirely. Those articles further state that this isn't just happing to ESPN. Most other channels are experiencing big drops in subscribers as well. Ok, well if people were only dropping ESPN, then other channels would not be experiencing drops in subscribers. Well, what that shows you is that this drop in subscribers isn't some rebellion against ESPN. There is no way you can claim otherwise, given the information that is being reported.

It's not plausible that ESPN was investigating a reconfigured Big 12. That was nothing but a rumor. It hasn't been backed up by any credible evidence at all. You can't claim something is/was plausible unless you have at least some basic evidence to prove it was happening. That's especially true when the rumor involves something as stupid as Nebraska leaving the Big Ten.

Regarding what I said 2-3 months ago, post exactly what I said. You've already misrepresented what I said on just in this thread, so no, I'm not taking anything you say about comments I made 3 months ago at face value unless you show me what I actually said.

Did anyone else hear a noise?

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Hey look! You can now customize TV packages with Verizon Fios that do not include ESPN.

https://www.verizon.com/home/fiostv/

 

[topdecktiger]

Did anyone else hear a noise?

See, classic deflection. You can't address the actual points I made. Instead, you try to deflect from that fact with sarcasm. If your points really had merit, and you could really refute what I said, you would have a reasonable response. However, since you can't, you resort to deflection.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

See, classic deflection. You can't address the actual points I made. Instead, you try to deflect from that fact with sarcasm. If your points really had merit, and you could really refute what I said, you would have a reasonable response. However, since you can't, you resort to deflection.

There .... there it is again .... did anyone hear that?

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Hey look! You can now customize TV packages with Verizon Fios that do not include ESPN.

https://www.verizon.com/home/fiostv/

.... Ahem!

 

[skygusty]

Bloviate -

1. US
   informal
   talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.
2. topdecktiger
3. buckaineer

 

[topdecktiger]

There .... there it is again .... did anyone hear that?

That's just a cop out. You've got no answer for anything I actually said.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

That's just a cop out. You've got no answer for anything I actually said.

There ... I hear it again ... anyone else hear that noise?

 

[Darth_VadEER]

This isn't a he said - she said situation, like they often are. It was perfectly documented. It wasn't a matter of consent (re: Minnesota), or an uncredible accuser.

If this offense isn't bad enough to get dismissed from a football team, then tell me what is?

 

[topdecktiger]

There ... I hear it again ... anyone else hear that noise?

Like I said, cop out. If you could actually make a reasonable argument against, my points, you would. But you aren't. You're just deflecting.

By the way, you might want to have a look a this. I found an article about FIOS and ESPN.

Here's the pertinent part:

Rather than market the DIY skinny bundle model, Verizon simplified everything into two options: The Custom TV Essentials package that included cable-TV mainstays like Discovery Channel, Lifetime, History, Bravo, Fox News, but not ESPN, and the Custom TV Sports & More package that included ESPN along with other sports programming..

So this is the problem. If you get the Essentials package, you don't get any sports channels, ESPN or otherwise. If you want the other sports channels, you have to get Sports & More, which includes ESPN. So, if you want to get rid of ESPN, you have to get rid of the other sports channels as well.

This goes back to my point. People aren't going to drop all their other sports channels just to spite ESPN. People who are dropping ESPN are cord cutters who simply want slimmer TV packages, and/or simply aren't sports fans in the first place. They aren't people who are just rebelling against ESPN. None of the articles on this topic support that contention.

Also, here are a couple more articles on FIOS. Here and here.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

I could have sworn there was a poster in this thread who said consumers don't have the choice of not having ESPN in their cable package and then this poster turns around and says that consumers can choose basic cable packages that do not include ESPN and other sports channels.

And not only that he uses the information I provided him to refute what I didn't say.

Nutty, huh?

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Is there a full moon tonight?

 

[JoePaEer]

pizzing contest in full flower.

Give it a rest guys.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

pizzing contest in full flower.

Give it a rest guys.

Can't you tell that I quit pizzing a while ago and went to having fun?

 

[topdecktiger]

I could have sworn there was a poster in this thread who said consumers don't have the choice of not having ESPN in their cable package and then this poster turns around and says that consumers can choose basic cable packages that do not include ESPN and other sports channels.

And not only that he uses the information I provided him to refute what I didn't say.

Nutty, huh?

Nope, because that's not what I said.

Can't you tell that I quit pizzing a while ago and went to having fun?

Because you can't back up your point.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Your point about streaming has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. That's because, unlike you and the other posters, I'm actually addressing the OP's question. He had two points:

1)Will FS1, NBCSN and others just pick up games that ESPN is currently broadcasting?

2) Does this mean these bigger conferences will be untenable?

1) Answer is no, because those channels are losing subscribers just like ESPN. They are in the same boat.

2) Possibly so, because nothing is going to be able to step in and match the TV revenue they get under the current system.

No, they aren't losing subscribers for these other reasons. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. You can't just cancel one channel or another. You have to cancel your entire package.

ESPN is mostly on basic packages. That means, most subscribers would have to cancel their entire cable package just to get rid of ESPN. It's simply unrealistic to believe people are doing that just because they are pissed at ESPN. If that's the case, they will simply not watch the channel.

The phenomenon of cord cutting is because many people (particularly younger ones), find it easier and cheaper to buy alternatives to cable or satellite.

Two points on this. 1) Every article that has been posted on this thread indicated the drop in subscribers is due to cord cutting, not customers simply downgrading their cable package. 2) You would still have to give up other channels if you downgraded. People aren't going to cut off their nose to spite their face. Plus, you said the Comcast packages don't contain any sports channels. So, it makes zero sense for someone to downgrade to a package where they get ZERO sports just to spite ESPN.

I understand what you are getting at, but that's really just trying to prove a point for the sake of argument, rather than seriously addressing the original topic of the thread.

OK, so to address the OP's questions, particularly #1, I would agree that most of the sports channels are bundled in one way or another and dropping one means dropping them all; no doubt about that. So there is no way for the other sports networks to pick up the slack effectively. Question #2 is up for grabs and we'll see in the near future as contracts expire and re-negotiation begins on some of these. It will be interesting to see what happens with the ACC Network and ESPN.

On the other point I don't think you've considered some of the impact of other channels, local channels mostly, on your cord-cutting model. And I am speaking only from my own experience in researching my own alternatives for TV viewing. For me, because I live just outside of metro Atlanta, there is only one way for me to get all of the local broadcast channels so I have DISH Network. There is no cable where I live and satellite TV is the only option. I am too far from the broadcast stations to get an over-the -air signal, so keeping local news and such only had one option.

I did look into down-grading my package on satellite to move some of my options to a streaming service; Sling TV being the best option because I could get ESPN/ESPN2 and more if I upgraded my package to the Orange/Blue plus optional packages. The problem was that just that was going to be $60.00/month and keeping even the basic DISH packages to get the other options I wanted was another $60. So I was basically back where I started.

If I lived in the metro ATL where I could get O-T-A TV and just add Sling TV streaming content it would be the way to go and I'd save a bundle every month add still get 90% of what I want. The rest I can get through my Amazon Prime Video service for one annual payment. Also, Internet service is also weak where I live and running out of bandwidth is a reality.

So a reality view (if you want to use my reality as an example) is that even though many are dropping cable altogether for some other TV viewing option (streaming mostly seems to be the best option) it won't be for everyone as there are limitations to what can be done reasonably and cost-effectively.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Nope, because that's not what I said.



Because you can't back up your point.

There .... there it is again.... anyone hear that?
I'm going in for a hearing test.

 

[topdecktiger]

OK, so to address the OP's questions, particularly #1, I would agree that most of the sports channels are bundled in one way or another and dropping one means dropping them all; no doubt about that. So there is no way for the other sports networks to pick up the slack effectively. Question #2 is up for grabs and we'll see in the near future as contracts expire and re-negotiation begins on some of these. It will be interesting to see what happens with the ACC Network and ESPN.

On the other point I don't think you've considered some of the impact of other channels, local channels mostly, on your cord-cutting model. And I am speaking only from my own experience in researching my own alternatives for TV viewing. For me, because I live just outside of metro Atlanta, there is only one way for me to get all of the local broadcast channels so I have DISH Network. There is no cable where I live and satellite TV is the only option. I am too far from the broadcast stations to get an over-the -air signal, so keeping local news and such only had one option.

I did look into down-grading my package on satellite to move some of my options to a streaming service; Sling TV being the best option because I could get ESPN/ESPN2 and more if I upgraded my package to the Orange/Blue plus optional packages. The problem was that just that was going to be $60.00/month and keeping even the basic DISH packages to get the other options I wanted was another $60. So I was basically back where I started.

If I lived in the metro ATL where I could get O-T-A TV and just add Sling TV streaming content it would be the way to go and I'd save a bundle every month add still get 90% of what I want. The rest I can get through my Amazon Prime Video service for one annual payment. Also, Internet service is also weak where I live and running out of bandwidth is a reality.

So a reality view (if you want to use my reality as an example) is that even though many are dropping cable altogether for some other TV viewing option (streaming mostly seems to be the best option) it won't be for everyone as there are limitations to what can be done reasonably and cost-effectively.

That's true, and it's another thing I found out reading the various articles about this. Some of these cord cutting deals aren't all they are cracked up to be. From what I've seen, if you are trying to essentially recreate your cable/satellite package, you won't really be able to do it for less money. Cord cutting is really for those who are looking to seriously trim down their actual channel packages.

There .... there it is again.... anyone hear that?
I'm going in for a hearing test.

That would be a good idea. Then you hear the sound of your argument falling flat.

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

My primary concern is that TV money is what jumped WVU from $10 million a year (Big East) to $30 million plus $8 million in 3rd tier rights (Big 12). If the TV money fades, even slightly, common sense tells me that so will WVU's annual take. Unless someone comes up with direct feeds, in which case WVU might not make as much anyway.
I'm watching this one with bated breath because I don't want my alma mater hurt financially by whatever happens.


M anhandled Missouri, 26-11

O rdinary against Youngstown, 38-21

U nnerving miracle goalline tip/interception escapes BYU, 35-32

N o quit against Kansas State, 17-16

T ony’s turbulence tore up Texas Tech, 48-17

A nother defense whipping, of TCU, 34-10

I gnominy of turnovers against Oklahoma State, 20-37

N o problem decimating Kansas, 48-21

E xcellent, timely defense AGAIN; beat Texas, 24-20

E rectile dysfunctioned against Oklahoma, 56-28

R ebounded big time on offense and defense at Iowa State, 49-19

S aved again by the defense against Baylor, 24-21


Now, let’s blow through Miami like a hurricane!