AAC Media Contract | Page 11 | The Boneyard

AAC Media Contract

brasssbonanzaa said:
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.
Expand ...

I’m not arguing that ESPN+ isn’t currently 2nd rate content and yes right now it is a standalone package. What we’re seeing right now with streaming services is a hybrid between cable and what streaming will eventually be. Right now these services like Hulu, PSVue and YoutubeTV look a lot like stripped down cable packages. Eventually they are going to a pay-per-channel or pay to select a set number of channels type model.
This is what the consumer is asking for and it’s the reason why you probably wont see consolidation in streaming services. With too much consolidation it just ends up being cable again.
 
CL82 said:
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.
Expand ...

There is no hockey deal... soccer yes, but the AAC doesn’t sponsor hockey (Ice or Field). ;)
 
whaler11 said:
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.
Expand ...

I agree with you that there are definitely needs for improvement on the hardware/software side of things to integrate everything but there are some ok options.
Something like Apple TV works well, but you’re right eventually someone has to integrate (on the software side) some of these services to make changing from one streaming service to another just like changing the channel.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
There is no hockey deal... soccer yes, but the AAC doesn’t sponsor hockey (Ice or Field). ;)
Expand ...
Sigh...
 
whaler11 said:
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.
Expand ...

Sorry millennials, I think we will have to look to generation z to get to true al-a-carte sports programming on a platform that allows seamless switching between streams with the ease of old fashion cable tv and also allows dvr capability that is easy to use. Don't think we get their during the millennial age.

A platform where I can stream/dvr/switch between a stew of my on streaming choices is still far off. Give me CNBC, ESPN, FOX and Discovery (by example) on a single ez platform....no buffering.
 
Exit 4 said:
Streaming sports will really hurt casual viewing. So many people watch "whats on."
Expand ...

I already "watch along" with a lot of games on Twitter, on this message board, on Reddit, Slack, etc. Where I'm chatting with people and personalities about the games while watching. And sometimes I'll see a couple comments about something and turn it on.

That's the future of casual viewing. I don't know how many years until that's the majority of casual viewing, but it's coming.

There may come a point where ESPN+ is ubiquitous enough through bundling like @Hurleyman216 says or enough worthwhile content is assembled that tastemakers/mavens subscribe and are talking about games so a tipping point is reached and casual fans subscribe to ESPN+ en masse and eschew stuff like free pirated streaming sites from Reddit since it's cheap and easy to subscribe. And then it becomes Netflix for sports.

EVEN IF that happens... UConn makes 6.5 million per year and the only games that matter will be on regular ESPN.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
I agree with you that there are definitely needs for improvement on the hardware/software side of things to integrate everything but there are some ok options.
Something like Apple TV works well, but you’re right eventually someone has to integrate (on the software side) some of these services to make changing from one streaming service to another just like changing the channel.
Expand ...

I have every option. Apple TV. Amazon Fire. Roku2 and Roku TV. Kodi.

The one that actually works and is awesome. X1. Spoiler alert: it’s the expensive one.

My Roku TV is second. If you have fast enough internet Roku TV is decent.

Also key is if you can get OTA networks. If you can get network OTA and get 100+MB from Cox or Comcast you can go with a Roku TV, OTA ant, netflix, hulu and whatever skinny bundle you like and get to about $150.

I have X1 with every station, 5 HD televisions, HBO and every station under the sun and 100 mb download for $250.

So you can get 90% of the product with 60% of the efficiency and save $115. I can see how that is attractive - but I’d rather be able to change the station without a 30 second lag or read twitter during a game and not have it filled with spoilers.
 
whaler11 said:
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.
Expand ...
12 years is insane. Will it even be the highest laid G5 league at the end old 12 years? I'll be 55 by then lol.

ESPN+ Will continue to get pirated. It's not some sort of panacea. The dollars per year are fine. The 12 years is a fail. Aresco just tied the next commissioner's hands.
 
auror said:
I already "watch along" with a lot of games on Twitter, on this message board, on Reddit, Slack, etc. Where I'm chatting with people and personalities about the games while watching. And sometimes I'll see a couple comments about something and turn it on.

.
Expand ...
Yes, there is some validity to this pov. Not sure it moves the needle in a big way. You pretty much already have to be a big fan of said sport to respond twitter buzz.
 
.-.
Last edited:
Hurleyman216 said:
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.
Expand ...

 
Exit 4 said:
Yes, there is some validity to this pov. Not sure it moves the needle in a big way. You pretty much already have to be a big fan of said sport to respond twitter buzz.
Expand ...

I agree that it'll be nichicized. (I made up that word).

But that's the way everything is going. If you're into something, you can get REALLY into something. And you'll follow the drum of the people already into that something to whatever is the best platform to follow your thing.

But everyone will be into something or a couple somethings, and that can aggregate to a lot if you control a lot of content (like Disney). It WILL be more decentralized than when there were 4 Network channels, but we're already getting used to that.

And the things that EVERYBODY will be into (March Madness, CFB bowls, Super Bowl, NBA/NHL Finals, The Masters, etc.) will be free (or free to those with the most popular bundle(s)).
 
.-.
I have Comcast and I hit one button and I have my choice of ESPN3 games, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube,... plus On Demand shows and movies. With a modern TV it is pretty easy to watch anything easily.

I used to have SNY in low def as part of my cable package, but Comcast took it off last year. And, it was a bonus! I now got to watch all of the SNY games on ESPN3 in HD on my living room TV.

And, all of the conference networks are going to go to a business model similar to ESPN+ in the future as the bundle breaks up. Then, conferences networks will be valued based on what fans will pay.
 
I want to stand with those who are saying that because we have the largest basketball fan base in the conference our basketball games won't be on ESPN+. I really do. However I think that having the largest following is exactly why most of our games will be on ESPN+. If they want to expand their subscriber base, they need to put content there that people actually want.
 
.-.
Excalibur said:
I want to stand with those who are saying that because we have the largest basketball fan base in the conference our basketball games won't be on ESPN+. I really do. However I think that having the largest following is exactly why most of our games will be on ESPN+. If they want to expand their subscriber base, they need to put content there that people actually want.
Expand ...

Yeah, sort of. But look at it this way, UConn gave birth to ESPN. ESPN exists because of UConn sports. Once again, we are chosen to give birth to the platform they are betting their future on.

I can't say I'm thrilled with this deal. But I don't hate it. We can literally watch everything. All of it, the baseball games, maybe soccer? That's fantastic. ESPN will put the teams that draw eyeballs on regular ESPN/ESPN2/U/News. Even three years ago when UConn was bad, but was ranked pre-season, we were on ESPN and CBS much more than any other team in the league. So basketball, with Hurley at the helm, will be fine. UConn football better win some games or it may never been seen on TV again.

The money is much better than it was, if not quite good enough. And no GOR, which is huge. I want to know more about what WSU and Navy are getting. It better not be much more than one full share between them. I'd like to know what we get for T3 rights, women's hoops. All in all, it doesn't suck.
 
whaler11 said:
Anyone who reads these threads can see I’ve forgotten more than 90% of those here know.

Kind of a bad spot for you to keep attacking me when you called for at least $10 million a team.

I pointed out the league was going to plus since the day ESPN launched it while you were talking about Amazon or some other insane babbling of multiple fantasy bidders.

You should stop popping off and read and learn something.
Expand ...

Woooooah

That’s a BIG head you’ve got.

12 years? Stomp and whine. But I have seen enough Term contracts; what’s the penalty or the exit conditions if/when you leave. If you have to guarantee some revenue stream or pay a fee to exit ... that’s one thing. Like any business, thing happen. Aresco and attorneys have something in their head on how to exit. 12 years may not be 12 years.
 
Guapo said:
UFC and soccer fans. Some hockey fans.
Expand ...
They also had a few golf major championships streamed in the mornings, before they went on tv in the afternoon - the feature groups only (similar to what you could stream pgatour.com). Also could watch any tennis match from all the grand slams.

I love all sports, and have the ability to stream while at work. But everyone is correct in saying it’s not something a casual sports fan would pay for right now.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
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.
Expand ...

It's all going away soon. 5G will all but end Cable. Not right away, but eventually. Verizon execs are already on record that the base cable/FiOS package will be replaced with 5G via a home based receiver that coverts it to wifi, a choice of Hulu+ or YouTube Red (or whatever it is called). From there you add on. That will be here inside two years. AT&T is going to move all the DirectTV people to their 5G service plus streaming. DirectTV is going to be a streaming service, plus they have HBO and other content once the TW deal closes.

ESPN is going to have to go in on it too, and it's a problem because their take from cable is massive. ESPN+, Longhorn, ACC, the streaming of the cable stations ESPN/2/U/N/C, it is all going to be repackaged. It won't look the way it does right now. They are positioning ESPN+ to be important.
 
HuskyHawk said:
It's all going away soon. 5G will all but end Cable. Not right away, but eventually. Verizon execs are already on record that the base cable/FiOS package will be replaced with 5G via a home based receiver that coverts it to wifi, a choice of Hulu+ or YouTube Red (or whatever it is called). From there you add on. That will be here inside two years. AT&T is going to move all the DirectTV people to their 5G service plus streaming. DirectTV is going to be a streaming service, plus they have HBO and other content once the TW deal closes.

ESPN is going to have to go in on it too, and it's a problem because their take from cable is massive. ESPN+, Longhorn, ACC, the streaming of the cable stations ESPN/2/U/N/C, it is all going to be repackaged. It won't look the way it does right now. They are positioning ESPN+ to be important.
Expand ...

Finally someone who gets it. Yes, right now ESPN has 86 M subscribers, but that number is going to 0 sooner than most realize. I’m not saying ESPN+ will have 86 million subscribers, but cable is going away and streaming services will replace it. ESPN+ will be part of those newer streaming services, but in what form we don’t know yet.
 
ESPN is going to have to go in on it too, and it's a problem because their take from cable is massive. ESPN+, Longhorn, ACC, the streaming of the cable stations ESPN/2/U/N/C, it is all going to be repackaged. It won't look the way it does right now. They are positioning ESPN+ to be important.[/QUOTE]

CONSPIRACY KITTY
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,954
Messages
4,546,507
Members
10,427
Latest member
CarloPFF


Top Bottom