ADVERTISEMENT

ESPN yesterday

Maybe they figured RU was going to win easily and thus, no upset. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
 
This all goes back to the Mike Rice videos--ESPN couldn't show them enough or talk about them enough. ESPN doesn't like who they don't like. They don't like us; they don't like Bob Huggins, etc, etc, etc. Good for ratings, and you know they need them these days.
TL
 
Funny, when other teams snap similar streaks, you see that on the scroll. But we hate ESPN, so we must spin it as negative.

Would you believe I saw a scroll the other day about a team winning its first game against a top-TWO team in X number of years? You know how hard it is to beat a top-two team? Who DOESN'T have a losing streak against top-two teams? But there it was, noting it's somebody's first win against a top-two team since whenever.

But since it's about Rutgers, it's obviously meant to be a slight and all part of their massive plot to undermine us.

Grow up, folks.
 
ESPN in general sucks. But it’s silly to think they have an anti- RU bias.
 
Funny, when other teams snap similar streaks, you see that on the scroll. But we hate ESPN, so we must spin it as negative.

Would you believe I saw a scroll the other day about a team winning its first game against a top-TWO team in X number of years? You know how hard it is to beat a top-two team? Who DOESN'T have a losing streak against top-two teams? But there it was, noting it's somebody's first win against a top-two team since whenever.

But since it's about Rutgers, it's obviously meant to be a slight and all part of their massive plot to undermine us.

Grow up, folks.
I don't think it's a company-wide policy to dislike Rutgers, but I do believe there are individuals who do dislike Rutgers. Some of them happened to be in prominent positions and have that platform to express their feelings. That may explain why we see certain stories given from a less positive POV.

Btw, I think the new TV deal for the B1G has rubbed certain individuals at ESPN the wrong way. Some ESPN personalities saw this potential when they missed out including Rutgers into the ACC. If you don't believe that, then you're in denial.
 
Btw, I think the new TV deal for the B1G has rubbed certain individuals at ESPN the wrong way. Some ESPN personalities saw this potential when they missed out including Rutgers into the ACC. If you don't believe that, then you're in denial.

Does the Disney - 21st Century Fox deal include Fox's share of BTN? If it does, does that change ESPN's view of the Big Ten?
 
A bit off topic....

Almost everyone household in the US currently pays to watch sports. This is going to change and it will have a dramatic impact on both college and professional sports. The young people of today will not have cable or satellite. I think we will see a drastic decline in the prices media pays to televise sports when contracts are up. Professional salaries are going down over time.

As for Rutgers...fast forward 15-20 years...the state of NJ is a fiscal mess....no money from the state will indirectly fund athletics....B1G revenue down 50%+ over 15 years. College coaches will not all be making $1,000,000+.

A bit back on topic....
I have no idea of ESPN's role in the new world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rutgers25
A bit off topic....

Almost everyone household in the US currently pays to watch sports. This is going to change and it will have a dramatic impact on both college and professional sports. The young people of today will not have cable or satellite. I think we will see a drastic decline in the prices media pays to televise sports when contracts are up. Professional salaries are going down over time.

As for Rutgers...fast forward 15-20 years...the state of NJ is a fiscal mess....no money from the state will indirectly fund athletics....B1G revenue down 50%+ over 15 years. College coaches will not all be making $1,000,000+.

A bit back on topic....
I have no idea of ESPN's role in the new world.
Wow talk about doom and gloom
"no" to which question?
fox sports not going to espn
 
A bit off topic....

Almost everyone household in the US currently pays to watch sports. This is going to change and it will have a dramatic impact on both college and professional sports. The young people of today will not have cable or satellite. I think we will see a drastic decline in the prices media pays to televise sports when contracts are up. Professional salaries are going down over time.

As for Rutgers...fast forward 15-20 years...the state of NJ is a fiscal mess....no money from the state will indirectly fund athletics....B1G revenue down 50%+ over 15 years. College coaches will not all be making $1,000,000+.

A bit back on topic....
I have no idea of ESPN's role in the new world.
This is silly. Typical “project trend into a future where nothing else changes” nonsense. You think media and entertainment business are going to roll over and shrug that no one watches them anymore? Think new platforms, new content channels, new forms of content consumption, etc. TV viewership can plummet and revenue can still grow. Not at all mutually exclusive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rutgersguy1
And just because you get to watch for free doesn't mean there's no money in it. Think of the old days of free tv programming. Advertising pays the bills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biazza38
And just because you get to watch for free doesn't mean there's no money in it. Think of the old days of free tv programming. Advertising pays the bills.

Do cord cutters get to watch for free? I guess if they only watch over-the-air broadcasts with an antenna, they do. But if they are watching streaming services, then the need to pay for the streaming service plus the internet provider. How do you predict how those will be priced 5 or 10 years into the future.
 
And just because you get to watch for free doesn't mean there's no money in it. Think of the old days of free tv programming. Advertising pays the bills.

Think of the player salaries in those old days....but yes that is where the revenue comes from AND you and I will pay ZERO to watch 2,4,5,7,9,11 and 13.

Reversal of net neutrality hopefully is temporary.
 
This is silly. Typical “project trend into a future where nothing else changes” nonsense. You think media and entertainment business are going to roll over and shrug that no one watches them anymore? Think new platforms, new content channels, new forms of content consumption, etc. TV viewership can plummet and revenue can still grow. Not at all mutually exclusive.

Yes, but the amount of $ that the average person for media WILL go down.

I am paying $225 month for cable and internet and I watch sports, 2 news channels (none with the letter X) and the weather channel 5 days a year. We also have netflix for $13.99? More than 50% of the time we are consuming media via Apple TV.
 
Wow talk about doom and gloom

fox sports not going to espn
I believe the regional Fox networks are included, which will give ESPN local rights for about 44 professional franchises. I think YES is part of the deal. Main Fox network, Fox News channels, Fox Sports (FS1/FS2/BTN) are not included.
 
Yes, but the amount of $ that the average person for media WILL go down.

I am paying $225 month for cable and internet and I watch sports, 2 news channels (none with the letter X) and the weather channel 5 days a year. We also have netflix for $13.99? More than 50% of the time we are consuming media via Apple TV.

How the hell do you pay $225 a month for that? I pay about half that for cable and internet. I have a low-level TV package (with no premium channels) which gives me my basic sports channels (including BTN).

I always assumed that the people with huge TV bills were paying for platinum packages plus premium movie channels.
 
How the hell do you pay $225 a month for that? I pay about half that for cable and internet. I have a low-level TV package (with no premium channels) which gives me my basic sports channels (including BTN).

I always assumed that the people with huge TV bills were paying for platinum packages plus premium movie channels.

They get me with BTN and i think I omitted the fact there is one SHO show my wife watches. The biggest rip off is paying for $10 each for 4 cable boxes. 2 of those TVs are rarely watched.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rutgersguy1
How the hell do you pay $225 a month for that? I pay about half that for cable and internet. I have a low-level TV package (with no premium channels) which gives me my basic sports channels (including BTN).

I always assumed that the people with huge TV bills were paying for platinum packages plus premium movie channels.

They get me with BTN and i think I omitted the fact there is one SHO show my wife watches. The biggest rip off is paying for $10 each for 4 cable boxes. 2 of those TVs are rarely watched.
Good point re: multiple boxes. A lot of what you pay for goes to the intermediary (cable company) rather than the content creator. If viewing is increasingly done on personal devices (iPad, phablets, phones, etc) over in-house wifi, out of pocket could come down significantly while content providers actually make same or more. Might then bring non-consumers into the market b/c total spend now works for more moderate budgets.

Obviously a very complex business and set of business models - just making the point that I don’t believe for a second the money is coming out of live programming (sport, entertainment, etc). So . . . no sky-is-falling, the best (economic) days of being B1G are behind us. Not buying that at all.
 
They get me with BTN and i think I omitted the fact there is one SHO show my wife watches. The biggest rip off is paying for $10 each for 4 cable boxes. 2 of those TVs are rarely watched.
That's really the only place I complain. I have no issues with the bundling etc..I end up spending 40 some odd bucks for 1 multiroom DVR and 2 other boxes. I don't mind paying for the DVR service but I'd prefer something of a 1 time fee for the box and that's it.

Eventually, I think the boxes will be gone because everyone is heading towards streaming and OTT services. I don't know when that will happen though.

As to Disney-Fox deal, it does NOT include any of their news and sports. They're building the new Fox around those things like Fox News, Fox Sports and BTN, etc.. will stay under Fox. There's even talk they could merge back with News Corp some time in the future.

International assets, movie studios and some cable channels like NatGeo, A&E, I think and maybe some Fox Regional sports channels will go to Disney.
 
Good point re: multiple boxes. A lot of what you pay for goes to the intermediary (cable company) rather than the content creator. If viewing is increasingly done on personal devices (iPad, phablets, phones, etc) over in-house wifi, out of pocket could come down significantly while content providers actually make same or more. Might then bring non-consumers into the market b/c total spend now works for more moderate budgets.

Obviously a very complex business and set of business models - just making the point that I don’t believe for a second the money is coming out of live programming (sport, entertainment, etc). So . . . no sky-is-falling, the best (economic) days of being B1G are behind us. Not buying that at all.

But the $40 for 4 boxes is part of the pie. Reduce the size of the pie and everyone gets less. The cable companies and DirectTV is what gives media some pricing power.
 
That's really the only place I complain. I have no issues with the bundling etc..I end up spending 40 some odd bucks for 1 multiroom DVR and 2 other boxes. I don't mind paying for the DVR service but I'd prefer something of a 1 time fee for the box and that's it.

I couldn't live without DVR, especially during college football. Many a weekend was saved by watching road Rutgers games and only wasting 25 minutes of time watching on DVR at night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rutgersguy1
That's really the only place I complain. I have no issues with the bundling etc..I end up spending 40 some odd bucks for 1 multiroom DVR and 2 other boxes. I don't mind paying for the DVR service but I'd prefer something of a 1 time fee for the box and that's it.

Eventually, I think the boxes will be gone because everyone is heading towards streaming and OTT services. I don't know when that will happen though.

As to Disney-Fox deal, it does NOT include any of their news and sports. They're building the new Fox around those things like Fox News, Fox Sports and BTN, etc.. will stay under Fox. There's even talk they could merge back with News Corp some time in the future.

International assets, movie studios and some cable channels like NatGeo, A&E, I think and maybe some Fox Regional sports channels will go to Disney.

Where do you think the Discovery channel fits in with all of this. I am thinking not good.
 
This is silly. Typical “project trend into a future where nothing else changes” nonsense. You think media and entertainment business are going to roll over and shrug that no one watches them anymore? Think new platforms, new content channels, new forms of content consumption, etc. TV viewership can plummet and revenue can still grow. Not at all mutually exclusive.
Agree. It's similar to the Walmart Amazon discussions I've had here in the past where people think Amazon is taking over everything (they are to a degree) and Walmart is going to roll over and die tomorrow. I said no as long as they adapt to the new trends in online retail etc.. they will be just fine and the two will continue to coexist. Walmart has been doing well as of late.

Similar here. As long as the media giants adapt to this new streaming OTT world they will do okay as well. You see consolidation going on in the industry now. You see the rolling out of a variety of bundles and streaming OTT services like DirectTV now, Disney's upcoming OTT with ESPN and soon with this takeover of Fox a likely Netflix like service. If you're willing to adapt, there's no reason you can't survive and thrive as well.

Talk about decrease......hmmm not so sure. Verizon just recently reupped some streaming rights from the NFL and it was a larger figure than previous. What I've said is you won't see the explosive growth in numbers like we've seen in the last 7 some odd years but there will be growth just at a slower pace. There's always doom and gloom talk. Doom and gloom comes if you just sit on your laurels (ass) and do nothing but if you're willing to adapt and change you can do okay to very well.
 
Last edited:
Where do you think the Discovery channel fits in with all of this. I am thinking not good.
Consolidation is the trend in the industry. CBS is out there as a partner for someone possibly. I was even wondering if Verizon who tried to bid for Fox but lost to Disney might try again with the smaller Fox. They need more content. Comcast would likely have antitrust issues especially because of their NBC acquisition.
 
I am currently paying $185 a month for internet, phone and cable TV. I get virtually everything Spectrum offers which includes The BIG network. Also includes free movies all over the place.
 
I think what you are missing is that young people won't have cable or satellite. People under the age of 25 don't even have TVs. They may pay for sports media indirectly to bars and Buffalo Wild Wings.

Yes a lot of change will happen. There won't be winners and losers. There will be survivors and losers. Not a zero sum game here.
 
I think what you are missing is that young people won't have cable or satellite. People under the age of 25 don't even have TVs. They may pay for sports media indirectly to bars and Buffalo Wild Wings.

Yes a lot of change will happen. There won't be winners and losers. There will be survivors and losers. Not a zero sum game here.
They don't need to have cable or satellite. Like I said I think everything will eventually be streaming either through wired broadband or wireless when speed and reliability match wired.

They still consume media it's just a matter of how and what. The how and what will still largely be controlled by the same big companies that have gotten even bigger along with some new players like Netflix, maybe Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Google...
 
ESPN has its own issues, just announced ESPNs president John Skipper is resigning due to substance abuse
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT