Anyone els cut the ESPN cord?
- Thread starter Caliknight
- Start date
You need to get some new friends! [roll]
Seriously you don't know anyone that watches SEC games?? If true than it's sad that your circle doesn't follow football at all.
I enjoyed watching most top college games...either the few in non-conf or in conf games with title or national championship implications.
While I don't watch all or even most other conf games...sometimes there is nothing better than a big time Saturday Night College Football Game.
I stopped watching ESPN 10yrs ago when it became apparent they were exploiting everything, reporting nothing. Game Day was AMAZING until it became a self promoting SEC/ACC anything but the B1G hack job brought to you by HOME DEPOT INFO-MERCIAL.
NO, I do not watch ESPN college games unless I TRULY have to - WHICH IS RARE NOW. I would rather watch a second tier game somewhere else than ESPN.
With ABC (yes they own ESPN) covering the B1G and CBS with the SEC, I find a away around ESPN.
NO, I do not watch ESPN college games unless I TRULY have to - WHICH IS RARE NOW. I would rather watch a second tier game somewhere else than ESPN.
With ABC (yes they own ESPN) covering the B1G and CBS with the SEC, I find a away around ESPN.
Wow. I find it odd that so called "college football fans" will pass on watching a great SEC game simply because it's on ESPN.
First let me restate that I only watch ESPN for live content. Mostly college football and baseball. The rest is garbage. However if LSU is playing Bama there is no way I'm passing because ESPN has the game. To me that is just stupid to pass on a great game because of who broadcasts it.
And before anyone says "I don't want to help their ratings", please stop. You are not a Neilson family!
If there is one thing that ESPN excels at it is college football.
First let me restate that I only watch ESPN for live content. Mostly college football and baseball. The rest is garbage. However if LSU is playing Bama there is no way I'm passing because ESPN has the game. To me that is just stupid to pass on a great game because of who broadcasts it.
And before anyone says "I don't want to help their ratings", please stop. You are not a Neilson family!
If there is one thing that ESPN excels at it is college football.
Very rarely watch Sec games, which isn't unusual. Living in SoCal, I know very few people who watch those games. Pac 12 rules the roost, followed by the B1G I would say. Lots the B1G schools have bars here. Not sure I have ever seen an Sec one.
The Democrats will never allow a la carte. due to their need for propaganda channels.If a bill is ever presented in the Senate for this purpose,the length of their filibuster will make Mr.Smith's resemble a hiccup.
I really hate to say this,but overall, I think the SEC Network does a better job than the Big Ten Network. Especially in the Spring, I had the SEC Network on all the time for college baseball games. If I wasn't a Rutgers fan and college hockey fan, I would be glued to the SEC Network all year. Yes,the Paul Finebaum Show has some, ehem "characters" that call in,but I wish there was something similar for the Big Ten Network plus a Big Ten "Sportscenter" type show year-round. Just my two cents.---And I REALLY hope BTN can start showing some of our big games from past seasons--the win at Tennessee,the win at Penn State,the tie with Florida,the bowl wins,even the great loss we had to Alabama.
I pass over ESPiN all the time. There is nothing on there that remotely interests me. I guess if I only cared about Lebron James, the SEC, Caitlyn Jenner, and whatever other crap they're pushing at us, then fine. But I don't. Once CFB season rolls around, if there is a good game on, I'll watch. But nothing more than that
ESPN Networks show more college football games (and obviously college basketball) than FOX/FOX Sports, NBC/NBC Sports, CBS/CBS Sports do combined.
ESPN is able to capitalize on their major properties for live sporting events (MLB, NBA, MNF, College Football and college basketball, plus others like Wimbledon et al).
When one season ends, another basically begins...which is how they can charge for what they do.
Disney's CEO Bob Iger was on CNBC yesterday and he thinks there could be a day where ESPN is sold direct to consumer like HBO. Same for Disney channel. Not as familiar with Disney channel, but I guess probably with big brands like Pixar, Star Wars and all their Disney shows which seemed to have wrestled away viewership from Nickolodeon. But ESPN has the content and if you have quality content you'll have the pricing leverage and they'll be fine no matter what happens in the future.
I think ESPN probably has deeper and more fervent market penetration then channels like HBO/Showtime and the like. So if those guys can survive and thrive, I think ESPN can too. It's the minutiae out there that'll have issues. If they keep acquiring the rights of sports people want to see then ESPN will be fine.
As to watching ESPN, I'm like the others that really don't watch it outside of the live events.
I think ESPN probably has deeper and more fervent market penetration then channels like HBO/Showtime and the like. So if those guys can survive and thrive, I think ESPN can too. It's the minutiae out there that'll have issues. If they keep acquiring the rights of sports people want to see then ESPN will be fine.
As to watching ESPN, I'm like the others that really don't watch it outside of the live events.
ESPN was THE sports channel when most of the country was bring built out for cable, so they became ubiquitous. They were able to capitalize on the fact that you had to offer ESPN to be seen as a viable cable option.
If this model goes away, their problem is that their viewership from August to January is much greater than the other half of the year. They will be challenged to even equal the revenue under an a la carte model that they earn now.
Main difference between Disney Channel and ESPN is "appointment television", as ESPN (and all their networks) value is mostly in their live sporting events...while Disney Channel is inventory/pre-recorded shows...which might be more valuable to direct to consumer purchase..
To this point though, what those other premium networks don't have are long term contractual obligations in the multi billions because of the deals with sports leagues. The types of contracts you're happy to sign to lock up the DVR-proof content when you have 95 million subscribers paying over $6/month for the service. But as that subscriber base continues to decline, it puts a lot of pressure on the business model when you can't just cut and run. I'm sure they'll be fine over the long term but I think we've definitely seen them hit their peak.
I tend to agree that we may have seen their peak but I'm still no sure. I think they'll find pricing models that eventually work. They're different avenues they could take. I could see them do pay per view for sporting events. I could see them be part of slimmed down packages from the cable providers and I could see them be direct to consumer like HBO and of course continue to be part of a larger bundle as they are now all of which will have varying price points. They could do some or all these things in combination, I think they'll find a model that works.
The main thing is they have to continue to maintain the content. Without that it all falls apart. Now how much they grow in the future, I agree that is somewhat uncertain but I think they'll be fine. The "largesse" of ESPN might disappear but I think the sustainability of the business should be fine.
You know the other thing I realized, if ESPN's "model" is going to be screwed up how do you think Fox's/NBC's business models will be. If you think ESPN will have less money to spend on content, how much less money will those other networks have to spend on content. So in the end they're still probably in the catbird's seat with regards to acquiring content.
Last edited:
True, and then you get to the implication of the effect on sports leagues themselves when they go from 3 major networks clawing over each other for the right to pay them billions annually, to...what exactly? So much is based off of TV revenue, as we know especially well here, and if that starts getting cut there could be a direct impact on athletes' salaries over the years. I'm sure the leagues will attempt to make up the difference with foreign subscribers, and I'm definitely not predicting the upcoming failure of sports leagues, but it's going to be really interesting to follow how this all plays out over the next decade.
And let's also be thankful we ended up where we did at the right time.
And let's also be thankful we ended up where we did at the right time.
Similar threads
