Blumenthal is the destroyer of worlds (NYT ESPN series)

[ruskin]

Well, not really, but trying to keep the headline theme going. I didn't see this part of the Times' ESPN series posted or referenced.

Lots of references to Our Senator in this story posted Tuesday. I wonder if anyone on The Senator's large and vast staff has dared mention to him that there is a university in his state tied to all this.

I know Blumie gets a chunk of the blame for where UConn is sitting in CR (IMO too much blame). But don't you think at some point ESPN's people would go to Blumie's people and say "We know some people who can help UConn get into (name your favorite conference here). They might really be happy to help if you quietly withdrew support for this bill". Trust me, much sleazier stuff happens all the time when laws are made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/s...n-stays-on-offensive.html?ref=richardsandomir

 

[SubbaBub]

This works. Ask Johnny Football.

 

[whaler11]

Bloomie will find a way to both further damage UConn and the state's economy. He's a double threat.

 

[Sea Goat]

Well, not really, but trying to keep the headline theme going. I didn't see this part of the Times' ESPN series posted or referenced.

Lots of references to Our Senator in this story posted Tuesday. I wonder if anyone on The Senator's large and vast staff has dared mention to him that there is a university in his state tied to all this.

I know Blumie gets a chunk of the blame for where UConn is sitting in CR (IMO too much blame). But don't you think at some point ESPN's people would go to Blumie's people and say "We know some people who can help UConn get into (name your favorite conference here). They might really be happy to help if you quietly withdrew support for this bill". Trust me, much sleazier stuff happens all the time when laws are made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/sports/ncaafootball/to-defend-its-empire-espn-stays-on-offensive.html?ref=richardsandomir[/quote]

Blumenthal is tone deaf and couldn't care less about the plight of UConn. He's all about camera ops. BTW, he does deserve at least partial blame for the UConn predicament because he spear-headed the effort to personally sue many of the individuals involved in the 2003 defections. (Swofford et al were all sued.) His case went nowhere, but in the meantime, he pissed off many of the decision makers that ultimately kept us out of the ACC from 2011 on. The relief sought by Blumenthal (which was denied) could have been equally obtained from the involved institutions without the personal lawsuits. Was Blumenthal using the personal lawsuits to terrorize individuals? Don't know. But, if he was, it didn't work. In fact, it backfired.

Now, it is clear ESPN does not like his proposed legislation. Everyone will deny it, but ESPN can (and may already have) affect UConn's CR destiny. Also, they are a big employer in CT and CT's politicians should support it. I am sure that some of the coffee room conversation in Bristol has already focused on Blumenthal and his legislation directed at ESPN while allegedly doing CT's bidding.

Let's hope the electorate remembers this when he runs again in 16.

 

[Fairfield 1st]

While I totally subscribe to the thought that Blumie is a grandstander of the highest order, I have no problem with his push to unbundle cable services. Think about it, most voters are NOT ESPN's demo. They just aren't. Voters are those in their 50s and 60's, many who are or will soon be on fixed incomes. Makes perfect political sense. It is also fair. I do not want to pay for anything I do not use.

 

[Sea Goat]

While I totally subscribe to the thought that Blumie is a grandstander of the highest order, I have no problem with his push to unbundle cable services. Think about it, most voters are NOT ESPN's demo. They just aren't. Voters are those in their 50s and 60's, many who are or will soon be on fixed incomes. Makes perfect political sense. It is also fair. I do not want to pay for anything I do not use.

My point is that he didn't have to be front and center. Perception becomes reality - it is his bill. On the DEMO issue, a lot of old bastards like me watch ESPN regularly. Further, a lot of old bastards like me want to keep the big CT employers happy so CT people continue to have jobs, pay taxes and spend money in this state.

 

[UC990411]

So the state should go after ESPN because UConn is in the AAC but the state shouldn't go after ESPN, geez

 

[Fairfield 1st]

My point is that he didn't have to be front and center. Perception becomes reality - it is his bill. On the DEMO issue, a lot of old bastards like me watch ESPN regularly. Further, a lot of old bastards like me want to keep the big CT employers happy so CT people continue to have jobs, pay taxes and spend money in this state.

So you are OK with paying for the Big Ten network and maybe the ACC network and the SEC network and teh Longhorn Network just so you can at NFL Redzone?

 

[UConn Dan]

So you are OK with paying for the Big Ten network and maybe the ACC network and the SEC network and teh Longhorn Network just so you can at NFL Redzone?

To be fair... I like the idea of only paying for what I watch, but the problem is in a truly a la carte system... those niche channels that only small demos watch would be gone because there would be no subscriber or advertising dollars to support it. My wife is a big fan of Discovery ID (those psychological profile/crime investigation type shows). Without some bundling, those types of channels are gone.

So I would think there could be some sort of happy medium of bundling by affinity. I would be in favor of this.
A sports bundle (which yes would include Longhorn network, etc) for $20
A kids bundle for $5 - $10.
A nature/history bundle for $5 - $10.
A food network/home& garden bundle for $5 -$10
etc...

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Maybe if ESPN was more responsive to Connecticut for the prior handouts our state has given, Blumenthal might back off. Unfortunately for ESPN, they have a track record of taking the money AND still screwing the state. No point in trying to cut a deal with them.

 

[billybud]

To be fair... I like the idea of only paying for what I watch, but the problem is in a truly a la carte system... those niche channels that only small demos watch would be gone because there would be no subscriber or advertising dollars to support it. My wife is a big fan of Discovery ID (those psychological profile/crime investigation type shows). Without some bundling, those types of channels are gone.

So I would think there could be some sort of happy medium of bundling by affinity. I would be in favor of this.
A sports bundle (which yes would include Longhorn network, etc) for $20
A kids bundle for $5 - $10.
A nature/history bundle for $5 - $10.
A food network/home& garden bundle for $5 -$10
etc...

Live sports are heavily subsidized by non watchers...if only those of us who watched had to support the tab...there would be higher costs to watch until contracts complete...then ESPN would have to cut funding to conferences and probably coverage.

The ultimate a la Carte is letting the people vote with their dial...if your team doesn't move the dial they don't get televised.

 

[UConn Dan]

Live sports are heavily subsidized by non watchers...if only those of us who watched had to support the tab...there would be higher costs to watch until contracts complete...then ESPN would have to cut funding to conferences and probably coverage.

The ultimate a la Carte is letting the people vote with their dial...if your team doesn't move the dial they don't get televised.

I agree that sports programming is the bulk of the bill and that's why some bundling is necessary for the benefit of everyone. Pricing is at what the market will bear.

 

[upstater]

Live sports are heavily subsidized by non watchers...if only those of us who watched had to support the tab...there would be higher costs to watch until contracts complete...then ESPN would have to cut funding to conferences and probably coverage.

The ultimate a la Carte is letting the people vote with their dial...if your team doesn't move the dial they don't get televised.

This would help UConn immensely.

SNY was put on basic cable and charges $2.50 a sub as soon as it got UConn sports. And then the ratings came through, and bball was the top show on all of television a few times.

So, for bball at least, UConn would get the subs and the ratings.

 

[Fairfield 1st]

What upsets me about ESPN and the business model highlighted in the article is that becaue they control so much content they get to set prices for consumers, and we really do not have a choice about it. Now I would likely buy almost all of their options ala carte, but I wouldn't buy other channels. I just think its too controlling and there are far more incentives for them to control content (i.e. dictating who plays who and when) when they have the leverage of the bundle, then without.

 

[billybud]

Maybe we need a cut off for FBS....not based on the P5 but rather on viewing criteria.

If, over five years, you don't have an average home attendance of 45,000, if your TV numbers are in the lower third of the ratings, you will not be in the FBS.

People can vote with their remotes and with their tickets...

 

[upstater]

Maybe we need a cut off for FBS....not based on the P5 but rather on viewing criteria.

If, over five years, you don't have an average home attendance of 45,000, if your TV numbers are in the lower third of the ratings, you will not be in the FBS.

People can vote with their remotes and with their tickets...

If you look at attendance, you better prepare for a 35 team division.

Some notable omissions: Colorado, Air Force, Arizona, Army, Baylor, Boston College, Cincinnati, UConn, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Louisville makes the cut-off by 3,000, Miami, Fla. is only 2,000 fans from the cutoff, Navy, Northwestern, Oregon St., Pittsburgh, Purdue, Duke, USF, UCF, Stanford, Syracuse, Utah is only 100 over, Vandy, Virginia is 1000 over, Wake Forest, Washington St.

East Carolina would qualify, but then, how do you quantify TV ratings?

Rutgers makes it but didn't make it the year before. Here's the interesting thing about that. Rutgers gave away 50% of its tickets for free. So... what metric do you use to prevent teams from giving away free tickets? Are you going to then measure total income? That could make more sense. Schools could give away tix to remain in the division.

Another interesting thing is what happens to the B1G network when the heart of the B1G (Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern) has been carved out?

 

[ctchamps]

Maybe we need a cut off for FBS....not based on the P5 but rather on viewing criteria.

If, over five years, you don't have an average home attendance of 45,000, if your TV numbers are in the lower third of the ratings, you will not be in the FBS.

People can vote with their remotes and with their tickets...

Not a bad idea and if I'm UConn I'm going to China and India and making UConn their honorary American team!

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Bloomie will find a way to both further damage UConn and the state's economy. He's a double threat.

He's the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Senator Blooming Idiot is the poster boy for the Failing Up Society.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

ESPN, the good neighbor to Connecticut. You think they'd be smart enough to placate their home state, leaning on schools (OK extorting schools) to accept UConn into a power conference. If nothing else it quiets the folks close to home.

 

[Road Dog]

Blumenthal is the sole reason why we are not in the ACC today.

 

[upstater]

Blumenthal is the sole reason why we are not in the ACC today.

Come on, keep telling yourself that. BC will go to any length to prevent UConn from getting in. Do you guys even know how much invective came from Syracuse and Pitt toward BC? Sticks and stones. Now look at BC's interests.

 

[Road Dog]

Come on, keep telling yourself that. BC will go to any length to prevent UConn from getting in. Do you guys even know how much invective came from Syracuse and Pitt toward BC? Sticks and stones. Now look at BC's interests.

Wasn't that suppose to change with BC's new AD?

 

[upstater]

Wasn't that suppose to change with BC's new AD?

No, it didn't change. That's because BCs interests are to keep UConn out of the ACC.

 

[Road Dog]

No, it didn't change. That's because BCs interests are to keep UConn out of the ACC.

I wonder how Syracuse and Pitt feel about UCONN.