ESPN was not on everyone's cable system back in 1979. The first broadcast in 1979 was to 1.4 million homes. At the end of 1980, they had 7.3 million subscribers, 1981 had 13.6 million subscribers at the end of the year. Peacock has 31 million subscribers today.
I mean there’s ways to watch if you really want to
Seems like "can be", but they also as mentioned likely will put games on Max streaming service. They will have a lot of winter/spring programming open with the NBA gone, though.
Well earlier your argument was that we're in a death spiral because nobody will see our stuff. But now you're saying that Peacock is jammed down everyone's throat. I would withhold your judgment on who looks foolish.
Like?
That's funny. When did I ever say signing with ESPN didn't benefit the Big East? One of my buddies was an early employee at ESPN and it was an uphill climb gaining subscribers as they had to go cable company by cable company (they weren't consolidated back then) and there were only 16 million cable subscribers in the US in 1980 and about 80 million TV households. The Big East signing with ESPN was a big risk, but it paid off as there weren't enough OTA channels to carry that many college basketball games. Unfortunately, ESPN subscribers are in a LT decline and people are moving to streaming. Netflix has about 270 million paid subscribers and growing which is over 3x ESPN's current declining sub base.
You're always more comfortable with your back against the wall.
I apologize for editorializing and using the term "death spiral" instead of just repeating "ticket to oblivion" word for word. Vastly distinct concepts and your point was entirely misrepresented to anyone reading my prose.
You said someone else looked foolish for their comments. I said I wouldn't judge someone else for looking foolish when you are the one arguing essentially opposite points in the same thread. Saying "No sports fan is going to subscribe to these to watch the Big East" which is a problem because (we all agree) the Big East needs to grow its popularity. And at the same time also arguing "I guess you haven't noticed that this whole thread is about Peacock getting jammed down everyone's throat." How can the ability to grow the league's popularity be a problem if (as you argue in this thread) a ton of people have access to Peacock for free and it's in a TON of homes?
That’s what matters. This is not good news until we see the $$$.
Fanta works for fox, not the conference. It’s literally in his interest to say the deal is good.
He also works for the Big East Digital Network. His "big break" was hosting Big East Shootaround for the conference, then parlayed that job into a job covering the league for Fox. He still does streaming events directly for the Big East like Media Day and postgame at the BET which are not through Fox. 2 weeks ago he interviewed Karaban for the Big East YouTube page. Etc.
Peacock has a much better list of movies than Netflix. Sure they don’t pump out crap the same way but for a strong suit of films, they are very solid. Better than Paramount+.
pirated streams
And what would be deemed a good deal ? Would $6 Million a team, $8 Million a team or $10 Million a team per year be considered a good deal ?
Nah, im good. Im an adult.
