PAC 12 final offer

[UConnJim]

ESPN and Fox paid more for less content than it would have cost them to just make a fair bid in the first place.

FOX paid more, but ESPN only pays part of the Big 12 contract and only bought 4 of the PAC 12 schools.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It does seem like bad business. But they do it over and over again.

Different reasons than the 11 years ago with the Big East. Back then, ESPN wanted to teach the Big East a lesson. This time, there was a little bit of that with the Pac 12, but the bigger reason is that ESPN is going up for sale and Disney does not want to sell a division that is competing with Apple. It would kill Disney on the price.

 

[JohnFSilver]

If no one else ever cuts the cord, then maybe this is a valid argument. How likely do you think that is to happen?

Price point is the issue.

What would the cost be for apple to want to do this?

Here is my thing though that makes anyone turning down apple crazy…

How many iPhones and iPads are in use? Apple TV is a service people know how to get to.

 

[noeynox]

Price point is the issue.

What would the cost be for apple to want to do this?

Here is my thing though that makes anyone turning down apple crazy…

How many iPhones and iPads are in use? Apple TV is a service people know how to get to.

People are also suffering from subscription fatigue.

 

[JohnFSilver]

And for all of you that said the market wasn’t ready for streaming, ESPN and Fox disagree. They clearly viewed the Apple deal as a threat.

Streaming is here .

Best shows on tv are streaming shows. Few people under the age of 40 are clamoring for their X1 remote.

The biggest threats to espn and fox are their competitors - apple, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix.

Those companies create great content, but more importantly, have developed a platform to deliver that content easily.

Here is thing…we are now watching UConn play those silly exhibitions over in Europe. Too bad they didn’t realize there was a market for that content. Missed opportunity to sell imo.

 

[JohnFSilver]

People are also suffering from subscription fatigue.

Are they? I am, but if you got something I want to watch, what are you going to do?

When you have that fatigue, content matters even more.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

People are also suffering from subscription fatigue.

It is nothing compared to the fatigue my $380/month cable/internet bill was giving me.

 

[noeynox]

It is nothing compared to the fatigue my $380/month cable/internet bill was giving me.

I agree with this. But tally up all your subscriptions and see where you are at.

GoNetSpeed 70 bucks
Yttv 75
Netflix 17
Espn/hulu/disney 21
Spotify family 17
Amazon Prime i think its 12 a month average. I had apple tv for free. Nothing there i liked.

I think i got all of mine. Everything keeps going up too.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I agree with this. But tally up all your subscriptions and see where you are at.

GoNetSpeed 70 bucks
Yttv 75
Netflix 17
Espn/hulu/disney 21
Spotify family 17
Amazon Prime i think its 12 a month average. I had apple tv for free. Nothing there i liked.

I think i got all of mine. Everything keeps going up too.

Why is Spotify or Netflix on that list? You were paying for them when you had cable, and probably Amazon Prime too.

It is not even close to what Cox was charging, and the streaming sites like ParamountPlus and Max are light years better than the on-demand library for Showtime or HBO.

 

[noeynox]

Why is Spotify or Netflix on that list? You were paying for them when you had cable, and probably Amazon Prime too.

It is not even close to what Cox was charging, and the streaming sites like ParamountPlus and Max are light years better than the on-demand library for Showtime or HBO.

They're subs. Netflix yes, Spotify no. That's my most recent add. And that is the issue. You want to watch anything good, you have to keep adding subscriptions. I've told the family we're only adding from here on if we cut something else.

 

[superjohn]

Streaming is here .

Best shows on tv are streaming shows. Few people under the age of 40 are clamoring for their X1 remote.

The biggest threats to espn and fox are their competitors - apple, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix.

Those companies create great content, but more importantly, have developed a platform to deliver that content easily.

Here is thing…we are now watching UConn play those silly exhibitions over in Europe. Too bad they didn’t realize there was a market for that content. Missed opportunity to sell imo.

Netflix created some great content many years ago and that was it. Once you get through all those older shows and true crime docs there's nothing.

 

[UConnJim]

It is nothing compared to the fatigue my $380/month cable/internet bill was giving me.

I get cable and internet for about $90/month at my condo for basically the same package I get at my house. Much cheaper as cable companies are innovating to keep the price down by standardizing equipment and packages, 6 month and group billing, etc. I have Prime Video with my Prime subscription, Netflix, and ESPN+ as well and my total cost is ~$115 per month.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I get cable and internet for about $90/month at my condo for basically the same package I get at my house. Much cheaper as cable companies are innovating to keep the price down by standardizing equipment and packages, 6 month and group billing, etc. I have Prime Video with my Prime subscription, Netflix, and ESPN+ as well and my total cost is ~$115 per month.

Here's a cookie.

I called my cable company 6 times to warn them I was cutting the cord, and even offered to send them my spreadsheet to show how much cheaper it was going to be for me once they were gone. They didn't offer to match until I walked into the store to return my equipment. It was too late.

That doesn't really matter. If the cable companies are matching streaming pricing, then ESPN is not getting its $9/subscriber rate. What made the cable model a once in a lifetime deal for ESPN was their ability to charge people who weren't watching ESPN $9/month. Those carriage fees for ESPN (and to a lesser extent Fox, ACCN, SECN, BTN, etc.) were huge revenue producers. I believe it was like 25% of ESPN's total revenue. That is going away quickly. As those who don't watch ESPN can find ways to avoid paying them, ESPN's revenue, and broadcast, model is going to have to change, and the numbers are going to get a lot smaller, fast.

 

[Kolumbo]

Stanford, Berkeley, Duke, Northwestern, Vandy

The academics here are at Ivy League level. I don't see how a student-athlete can satisfy the rigorous academic requirements and the semi-pro football requirements of today. You also have your UCLA and Michigan U's but for the elite of the elite, I think you have to let go of the charade.

Also, unless the geniuses at Stanford and Berkeley can create solar powered jets or star trek-like transporters, the carbon emissions would be an absolute global disaster for any CR move outside of the WCC or Big West.

 

[Rufus]

Price point is the issue.

What would the cost be for apple to want to do this?

Here is my thing though that makes anyone turning down apple crazy…

How many iPhones and iPads are in use? Apple TV is a service people know how to get to.

I have an iPhone and have never once used Apple TV.

 

[JohnFSilver]

I have an iPhone and have never once used Apple TV.

Why not? Like it is cheap and the shows incredible.

If UConn was on there. Would you be able to find it?

 

[Rufus]

Why not? Like it is cheap and the shows incredible.

If UConn was on there. Would you be able to find it?

It just never interested me. I already have multiple subscriptions and feel like I don't even use them as much as I should to get the bang for the buck. If I was forced to get it to watch UConn, I would. But that would be the only reason. Casual fans will not buy it to watch UConn, or any other school for that matter. Streaming on most any platform will eliminate the casual fan from watching most games, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

[JohnFSilver]

It just never interested me. I already have multiple subscriptions and feel like I don't even use them as much as I should to get the bang for the buck. If I was forced to get it to watch UConn, I would. But that would be the only reason. Casual fans will not buy it to watch UConn, or any other school for that matter. Streaming on most any platform will eliminate the casual fan from watching most games, at least for the foreseeable future.

And, that paragraph is why content is king and the move to streaming inevitable.

tv is moving away from advertising only and going to a pay model. It isn’t the casual fan they want, they want the hardcore fan who will pay a premium.

 

[Chuck]

Here's a cookie.

I called my cable company 6 times to warn them I was cutting the cord, and even offered to send them my spreadsheet to show how much cheaper it was going to be for me once they were gone. They didn't offer to match until I walked into the store to return my equipment. It was too late.

That doesn't really matter. If the cable companies are matching streaming pricing, then ESPN is not getting its $9/subscriber rate. What made the cable model a once in a lifetime deal for ESPN was their ability to charge people who weren't watching ESPN $9/month. Those carriage fees for ESPN (and to a lesser extent Fox, ACCN, SECN, BTN, etc.) were huge revenue producers. I believe it was like 25% of ESPN's total revenue. That is going away quickly. As those who don't watch ESPN can find ways to avoid paying them, ESPN's revenue, and broadcast, model is going to have to change, and the numbers are going to get a lot smaller, fast.

Also, a comparison to cable in a condo isn't apples to apples and isn't something you can get on your own. In most cases, the condo negotiates a lower rate with the cable company, but it gets added to the monthly HOA whether you want it or not. So, the cable company gets a 100% subscription coverage for the complex.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

And, that paragraph is why content is king and the move to streaming inevitable.

tv is moving away from advertising only and going to a pay model. It isn’t the casual fan they want, they want the hardcore fan who will pay a premium.

My gut tells me if you put stuff like UConn basketball or Maryland football behind a premium paywall, people will realize they can do without it pretty quickly.

Saw that to an extent with the pandemic, life went on seasons were missed and people didn't skip a beat.

 

[JohnFSilver]

My gut tells me if you put stuff like UConn basketball or Maryland football behind a premium paywall, people will realize they can do without it pretty quickly.

Saw that to an extent with the pandemic, life went on seasons were missed and people didn't skip a beat.

Football, yes. Men’s basketball no.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Football, yes. Men’s basketball no.

Say you charge $25/month for UConn basketball and for the sake of argument make it 5 months a year for $125/season for UConn basketball.

You'd need 40,000 people to get to $5M annual subscriber revenue, which is about what the Big East pays us.

You probably could get 40k people but who produces the games, broadcasts, pre game, post game, etc. someone is taking a big chunk of that $5M.

UConn doesn't always fill the 15k seat civic center in our states capitol... Are there really 25k other people willing to pay for it? I don't know.

 

[kemba]

Besides the finances how does recruiting play into all this? Whether accurate or not I gotta think recruits are going to be concerned about exposure if games are just streaming? Maybe not in our situation for a UConn football deal comparing Apple TV to cbs sports network, but for a conference to choose Apple TV over espn I don’t know

 

[whalerfan]

Say you charge $25/month for UConn basketball and for the sake of argument make it 5 months a year for $125/season for UConn basketball.

You'd need 40,000 people to get to $5M annual subscriber revenue, which is about what the Big East pays us.

You probably could get 40k people but who produces the games, broadcasts, pre game, post game, etc. someone is taking a big chunk of that $5M.

UConn doesn't always fill the 15k seat civic center in our states capitol... Are there really 25k other people willing to pay for it? I don't know.

Yes if it included women's hoops as well. You're going to see some screaming this fall as YoutubeTv doesn't have SNY anymore. Now those who still complain that the games aren't on CPTV will be livid that they can't see them if they have that service.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Say you charge $25/month for UConn basketball and for the sake of argument make it 5 months a year for $125/season for UConn basketball.

You'd need 40,000 people to get to $5M annual subscriber revenue, which is about what the Big East pays us.

You probably could get 40k people but who produces the games, broadcasts, pre game, post game, etc. someone is taking a big chunk of that $5M.

UConn doesn't always fill the 15k seat civic center in our states capitol... Are there really 25k other people willing to pay for it? I don't

Tbh, yes. Men, women and football? People get $70 cable to get the games. Imagine knocking it down to $10 a month for all UConn sports. Maybe 100,000 subscribers would be my guess

 

[billybud]

Iger says ESPN will move to streaming...it is a balancing act because bundled linear ESPN is still bringing in profits.

ESPN would like to partner with someone (Apple, etc) and become a coordinator of sorts for live sports programming.

 

[uconnyankee]

And, that paragraph is why content is king and the move to streaming inevitable.

tv is moving away from advertising only and going to a pay model. It isn’t the casual fan they want, they want the hardcore fan who will pay a premium.

I think people will get it if there is something of interest. I subscribed for Lasso. Dropped when season/series was over. I’m not a huge content junkie. Did same with Paramount and Yellowstone.

Not a subscribe and forget person. Especially if no penalty to drop and add.

 

[billybud]

Tbh, yes. Men, women and football? People get $70 cable to get the games. Imagine knocking it down to $10 a month for all UConn sports. Maybe 100,000 subscribers would be my guess

This is where I wonder....right now, folks will nationally watch a game between two teams of which they are not fans......what happens when you have to have a handful of subscriptions to have that broad repetoire of games to watch...from Ohio State-Michigan to Alabama-LSU to UConn and Duke basketball.

 

[dayooper]

And, that paragraph is why content is king and the move to streaming inevitable.

tv is moving away from advertising only and going to a pay model. It isn’t the casual fan they want, they want the hardcore fan who will pay a premium.

How does this model help the university as a whole? You have to ask yourself what the purpose of intercollegiate sports is. Is it to make money? Make money for what? If most schools run in the red, that’s the worst business decision possible. It would be better to shut it all down or go to a much smaller department, much like a DII or DIII style.

Why is it so important for the Big10 to be a national conference? Why is it so important that Alabama or Georgia be in contention for the NC? Why is it so important that UConn be a basketball powerhouse? Why don’t the Ivy League schools play sports at a high level or why none of them are dying to leave the conference? Here’s a hint, it ain’t the hardcore fan.

 

[Ldandy]

For all of the posters claiming that streaming will eventually replace traditional cable, they have to ask themselves one question. Who provides your internet access? I suspect that for a lot of you it is your local cable provider. You may "cut the cord" on cable, but you'll still be plugged in to the same provider. Guess what's going to happen to all of these lower cost streaming options when traditional cable eventually goes the way of the Pac 12? Let me clue you in. The prices are going to go way up and all of your beloved streaming content will suddenly be full of commercials. It might not be packaged like 2000's Cable, but by the time you're done purchasing content your bank account won't know the difference.