AAC Media Contract

[Hurleyman216]

Is this how you always act when you get your d 1ck kicked in?

You and Whaler are quite the team. Do you still use those free AOL disks to sign into the internet too?

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

You still don’t get it. The people streaming ESPN are paying over $100/month for cable.
ESPN+ cost $4.99/month. Cable customers pay about $9/month of that $100+ to ESPN.
What you don’t get is that the “APP” (that’s short for application for your generation) is the new “cable box”. So, you know that little box that sits near your tv that you point the remote at? Eventually that’s going to be called an app and it won’t matter whether your game is on ESPN or ESPN+. Streaming services like Hulu have already talked about packaging content with ESPN+. So eventually, ESPN+ will be a series of channels offered by all these streaming services. I know it’s really hard for your pea brain to comprehend, but everything is going to be ok.

The people streaming ESPN won't be paying $100/month for cable in the future, because the networks, cable companies, etc. will respond to market demand by finally offering debundled cable packages. ESPN as a network isn't going anywhere, they'll just be forced to change how theirs and the cable companies' models work.

The problem with your argument is STILL that virtually no one is cord-cutting in favor of getting ESPN+. No one.

Those who purchase ESPN a la carte will get streaming ESPN - that number will continue to dwarf ESPN+ subscriber numbers.

 

[Hurleyman216]

The people streaming ESPN won't be paying $100/month for cable in the future, because the networks, cable companies, etc. will respond to market demand by finally offering debundled cable packages. ESPN as a network isn't going anywhere, they'll just be forced to change how theirs and the cable companies' models work.

The problem with your argument is STILL that virtually no one is cord-cutting in favor of getting ESPN+. No one.

Those who purchase ESPN a la carte will get streaming ESPN - that number will continue to dwarf ESPN+ subscriber numbers.

I think I’ve said it multiple times, but here goes again. ESPN+ is currently a stand alone service, but they are already negotiating with streaming services (Hulu and others) to incorporate it into their standard streaming services. At that point it becomes more like ESPNU, etc. The problem with the BY is we have a bunch of posters here in their 50’s, 60’s, 70’s that don’t understand where media is and where the technology is going. Again, in the short-term we will get better exposure being on ESPN, in the latter half of this contract the difference between ESPN and ESPN+ isn’t going to be as big as it is now.

 

[Towney007]

I can't believe the effort people are putting into making this look like a good deal. It literally is a terrible deal.

Even IF UConn turns it around *completely* in both sports and becomes dominant in the conference in everything, it's a bad deal. They're getting pennies on the dollar.

Even IF the rest of the conference overcomes the exposure issues and everyone takes a step forward in everything, it's pennies on the dollar.

If everything goes right and it's still a crappy deal, it's a *crappy deal*. It's literally unreal to read some of the comments here.

 

[whaler11]

So all this b*tching from him and I’m supposed to feel bad for him because he has to sign into his ESPN+ account?

I know you aren’t capable of this based on your posts - but maybe consider the entire marketplace dynamic and not just how you interact with television.

I have had ESPN+ for a while because my soccer club in England was relgated and ESPN+ has the rights to the English 2nd Division. I watch it on my phone and everything! I have X1 because streaming sports sucks and I’m not a poor.

At the same time I know a lot of old people who watch the UConn women - and they will never see a game on ESPN+. For every tech savvy boomer being poisoned on Facebook there is one who has no idea how to stream a single thing. My mother is 70 and lives in a senior community - there is no way beyond going over and turning the game on for them they will ever see a game on +.

 

[Towney007]

IT IS AN 82 MILLION PERSON GAP.

82 MILLION LOL.

Like forget how they access it even. Which is an issue. Even if they were going to go streaming, which depending on the deal i'd have been fine with - they picked literally the low bird on the totem pole.

It literally exists so they can buy as much dung as possible knowing that a few kernels in the crap are no good - because they're going to make out like dogs even IF any of these programs in this conference or any of the other ones figure their lives out.

 

[mdkhusky]

You guys are both

 

[Walker11]

I can't believe the effort people are putting into making this look like a good deal. It literally is a terrible deal.

Even IF UConn turns it around *completely* in both sports and becomes dominant in the conference in everything, it's a bad deal. They're getting pennies on the dollar.

Even IF the rest of the conference overcomes the exposure issues and everyone takes a step forward in everything, it's pennies on the dollar.

If everything goes right and it's still a crappy deal, it's a *crappy deal*. It's literally unreal to read some of the comments here.

Maybe if you make the same post 20 times instead of 19 times I will change my mind. Is this a good deal for UConn? No. There is no good deal for us in the AAC because we are in the AAC. I don't understand you freaking out about our basketball teams exposure. Is a recruit going to be discouraged that we play Vermont on ESPN+ instead of SNY or CBSS? Football is screwed regardless.

 

[calluke]

I think I’ve said it multiple times, but here goes again. ESPN+ is currently a stand alone service, but they are already negotiating with streaming services (Hulu and others) to incorporate it into their standard streaming services. At that point it becomes more like ESPNU, etc. The problem with the BY is we have a bunch of posters here in their 50’s, 60’s, 70’s that don’t understand where media is and where the technology is going. Again, in the short-term we will get better exposure being on ESPN, in the latter half of this contract the difference between ESPN and ESPN+ isn’t going to be as big as it is now.

I don't see ESPN+ getting bundled into other streaming services. They put a price tag on it so they can tap into the consumer directly without sharing the profits with another provider. If they can force me to pay them $5 directly, why would they take only $1 from Sling? And why would Sling offer up that dollar when their profit margin is already razor thin?

If there is any bundle I could possibly see Hulu because I believe they are owned by Disney(?)

 

[Hurleyman216]

Disney may offer a discounted bundle of Hulu, ESPN+ and its new streaming service

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

I think I’ve said it multiple times, but here goes again. ESPN+ is currently a stand alone service, but they are already negotiating with streaming services (Hulu and others) to incorporate it into their standard streaming services. At that point it becomes more like ESPNU, etc. The problem with the BY is we have a bunch of posters here in their 50’s, 60’s, 70’s that don’t understand where media is and where the technology is going. Again, in the short-term we will get better exposure being on ESPN, in the latter half of this contract the difference between ESPN and ESPN+ isn’t going to be as big as it is now.

Yes, it's a standalone service, but the cost is on top of what you pay for TV and other streaming services. That's the problem. It's not something that in the future of cable TV, which will change but not go away, the majority of consumers will choose to purchase over ESPN.

And if in the future ESPN and ESPN+ are not different, that will mean ESPN+ as a concept failed and its content was folded back into the ESPN family. Eventually the streaming service companies will have to consolidate services - spending $10/month on Spotify/Hulu, $119/year for Prime, $13/month for Netflix, MLB.tv, Sunday Ticket, HBO Now, etc. is not a sustainable model especially if more content services are created.

ESPN+ live sports are almost entirely second-rate add-on content that most sports fans can easily live without. ESPN isn't going to move UNC-Duke to ESPN+ exclusively. It's a niche product meant to fill gaps.

 

[ClifSpliffy]

I think I’ve said it multiple times, but here goes again. ESPN+ is currently a stand alone service, but they are already negotiating with streaming services (Hulu and others) to incorporate it into their standard streaming services. At that point it becomes more like ESPNU, etc. The problem with the BY is we have a bunch of posters here in their 50’s, 60’s, 70’s that don’t understand where media is and where the technology is going. Again, in the short-term we will get better exposure being on ESPN, in the latter half of this contract the difference between ESPN and ESPN+ isn’t going to be as big as it is now.

50s, 60s, and 70s? huh, news to me. I always thought it was 80s and 90s. now that I know, i'll change my pitch. proally talk more about cassettes and 8 track, and less about grammaphones.

 

[calluke]

ESPN+ live sports are almost entirely second-rate add-on content that most sports fans can easily live without. ESPN isn't going to move UNC-Duke to ESPN+ exclusively. It's a niche product meant to fill gaps.

Bingo.

 

[CL82]

I can't believe the effort people are putting into making this look like a good deal. It literally is a terrible deal.

Here's the thing, to paraphrase Parcells: Your conference is what your media deal says it is.

I don't like it but there it is. We are the best of the G5, sort of since Big East isn't even offering football. For everyone but the old big east teams, this is a great deal. For us not at all. Still it is more money than we had been getting under our sucktacular former deal. The key, as pretty much everyone agrees is what is the plus. I want to believe that it is the tier 3 stuff and we've got some kind of a side deal for SNY games, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I was worried about it. It will be good to see more hockey and baseball but... SMH... I don't see a way out this hellhole.

 

[upstater]

Reading comprehension is important.

 

[auror]

IT IS AN 82 MILLION PERSON GAP.

82 MILLION LOL.

Like forget how they access it even. Which is an issue. Even if they were going to go streaming, which depending on the deal i'd have been fine with - they picked literally the low bird on the totem pole.

It literally exists so they can buy as much dung as possible knowing that a few kernels in the crap are no good - because they're going to make out like dogs even IF any of these programs in this conference or any of the other ones figure their lives out.

Here's the thing that the one person in this thread in favor of ESPN+ is missing:

Unlike a real company who gets market share by being early into a new market, it doesn't matter if the AAC is "early" into streaming on ESPN+. Even if it catches on and say 30 million people have ESPN+ by the end of the contract... we're still getting paid 6.5 million dollars. 12 years from now. We're getting 6.5 million. Which is 4.5 million in today's dollars. We're under water as a high major conference now, and we'll be in worse position monetarily 10 years from now.

Plus, streaming as a mindset is about on demand (Millennial checking in). It's binging and watching when you want it. No one is "stream surfing" and saying hey it's 7:30 on a Thursday, let me see what's on my streaming networks right now. Oh an AAC college basketball game. It's UConn vs. USF. I'll check in. Let me see how the Huskies are looking. The ESPN+ subscriber numbers are irrelevant for exposure except those that are already fans. The only exception would be palpable internet buzz. A game is getting talked up on Twitter. Guess what, that only happens in interesting games with something at stake. A rivalry game where both teams are good, etc.. But guess what: ESPN is poaching every single one of those games. So the streaming aspect is irrelevant.

 

[whaler11]

Here's the thing that the one person in this thread in favor of ESPN+ is missing:

Unlike a real company who gets market share by being early into a new market, it doesn't matter if the AAC is "early" into streaming on ESPN+. Even if it catches on and say 30 million people have ESPN+ by the end of the contract... we're still getting paid 6.5 million dollars. 12 years from now. We're getting 6.5 million. Which is 4.5 million in today's dollars. We're under water as a high major conference now, and we'll be in worse position monetarily 10 years from now.

Plus, streaming as a mindset is about on demand (Millennial checking in). It's binging and watching when you want it. No one is "stream surfing" and saying hey it's 7:30 on a Thursday, let me see what's on my streaming networks right now. Oh an AAC college basketball game. It's UConn vs. USF. I'll check in. Let me see how the Huskies are looking. The ESPN+ subscriber numbers are irrelevant for exposure except those that are already fans. The only exception would be palpable internet buzz. A game is getting talked up on Twitter. Guess what, that only happens in interesting games with something at stake. A rivalry game where both teams are good, etc.. But guess what: ESPN is poaching every single one of those games. So the streaming aspect is irrelevant.

Ding ding ding. If ESPN+ becomes Amazon - it doesn’t do the AAC any financial good.

Certainly when things are changing quickly you want a 12 year deal so you can go take a nap under a tree.

 

[Chief00]

It’s perfect for that and soccer. It’s a death sentence for recruiting in football when you’ve already got a nearly impossible challenge.

I agree, if it’s true the majority of MBB games are on ESPN digital - it will kill recruiting. Furthermore, the different size audience between those paying $5 per month and those who won’t is huge. Additionally, TVs in sports bars won’t carry the games unless they are smart TVs. Need more information but there are some red flags.

 

[Exit 4]

A subscription to ESPN+ does not get you access stream ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU etc where the vast majority of relevant live sports currently reside and stand to remain for a good while longer. Therefore I'm not a cord cutter and wont be for what is likely to be a long while yet for this reason. I think we are still another 8 to 10 years ahead from true al-la-cart streaming with the blue chip channels. Cable, as industry is extremely well aware how true unbundling with mean massive revenue declines.

 

[Walker11]

Here's the thing that the one person in this thread in favor of ESPN+ is missing:

Unlike a real company who gets market share by being early into a new market, it doesn't matter if the AAC is "early" into streaming on ESPN+. Even if it catches on and say 30 million people have ESPN+ by the end of the contract... we're still getting paid 6.5 million dollars. 12 years from now. We're getting 6.5 million. Which is 4.5 million in today's dollars. We're under water as a high major conference now, and we'll be in worse position monetarily 10 years from now.

Plus, streaming as a mindset is about on demand (Millennial checking in). It's binging and watching when you want it. No one is "stream surfing" and saying hey it's 7:30 on a Thursday, let me see what's on my streaming networks right now. Oh an AAC college basketball game. It's UConn vs. USF. I'll check in. Let me see how the Huskies are looking. The ESPN+ subscriber numbers are irrelevant for exposure except those that are already fans. The only exception would be palpable internet buzz. A game is getting talked up on Twitter. Guess what, that only happens in interesting games with something at stake. A rivalry game where both teams are good, etc.. But guess what: ESPN is poaching every single one of those games. So the streaming aspect is irrelevant.

This is the best criticism of the deal as it pertains to basketball. The length...not great.

 

[whaler11]

I agree, if it’s true the majority of MBB games are on ESPN digital - it will kill recruiting. Furthermore, the different size audience between those paying $5 per month and those who won’t is huge. Additionally, TVs in sports bars won’t carry the games unless they are smart TVs. Need more information but there are some red flags.

Good point. It’s hard enough to find bars with CBSSN - forget ESPN+. It might not even be legal for them to subscribe at $5 and show on a smart TV based on the TOS.

 

[Exit 4]

Plus, streaming as a mindset is about on demand (Millennial checking in). It's binging and watching when you want it. No one is "stream surfing" and saying hey it's 7:30 on a Thursday, let me see what's on my streaming networks right now. Oh an AAC college basketball game. It's UConn vs. USF. I'll check in. Let me see how the Huskies are looking.

Streaming sports will really hurt casual viewing. So many people watch "whats on."

By example, I watched the two NCAA play-in games tonight. Most years I dont watch those games. I had them on casually in the back ground and thanks to the beauty of baby boomer technology, I could quick flip around when bored of the game to other crap, then drop back in.

 

[superjohn]

The only thing about the deal that doesn't completely suck arse is no GOR so we can .

 

[ClifSpliffy]

and there u have it. 'TV' (read as 'cable' tho plenty of folks, including me, have digital ants, too. hey, I like having all the options, 'cept cable, that's a nothingburger) skews as opeepo.
Fewer now say living without TV would be very hard
college sports cash = football. college football = espn.

 

[whaler11]

Streaming sports will really hurt casual viewing. So many people watch "whats on."

Yep. And streaming makes ‘changing stations’ a miserable experience.

I subscribe to MLB.tv and it’s on my phone and all 5 of my TVs. Granted my favorite team stinks but I can bounce between SNY/NESN/YES/MLB/FS1 with ease and no buffering.

It’s an effort to go to MLB.tv and once I leave once I don’t go back.