Next Shockwave to Conference Alignment

[Nova09]

Mods can move if this isn't fcs, but I think it has ramifications for the subdivision

The short version is ESPN overpaid for content, knowing they were overpaying to create a barrier of entry for competitors. Now ESPN is realizing they overpaid by even more than they thought. Also they are locked into deals as people are leaving cable/satellite subscriptions and it looks increasingly likely for those media to remain they will have to unbundle, meaning giving consumers the option of what they want to pay for based on what they actually watch. This would be terrible for ESPN bottom line. Disney is extremely concerned about this, as ESPN is currently holding back otherwise bullish investors. Conferences were formed based on tv revenue which is directly tied to population of a region in the bundling model; if that model changes, quality of product (e.g. exciting/nationally relevant games) becomes more important and could lead to a new round of realignment.

Ok that wasn't so short but best I could do, you should read the article anyway.

http://thebiglead.com/2016/01/14/espn-cord-cutting-college-football/

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Mods can move if this isn't fcs, but I think it has ramifications for the subdivision

The short version is ESPN overpaid for content, knowing they were overpaying to create a barrier of entry for competitors. Now ESPN is realizing they overpaid by even more than they thought. Also they are locked into deals as people are leaving cable/satellite subscriptions and it looks increasingly likely for those media to remain they will have to unbundle, meaning giving consumers the option of what they want to pay for based on what they actually watch. This would be terrible for ESPN bottom line. Disney is extremely concerned about this, as ESPN is currently holding back otherwise bullish investors. Conferences were formed based on tv revenue which is directly tied to population of a region in the bundling model; if that model changes, quality of product (e.g. exciting/nationally relevant games) becomes more important and could lead to a new round of realignment.

Ok that wasn't so short but best I could do, you should read the article anyway.

http://thebiglead.com/2016/01/14/espn-cord-cutting-college-football/

The story makes some interesting points, but overreaches significantly in key areas.

1. More content does not equal better content. A preponderance of content has hurt regular season college basketball immensely. If there's a great way to sift the gems out of the many, many college basketball games in inventory spread across dozens of networks, I haven't seen it. Putting it on the internet just makes it that much harder to get to the content.

2. "Schedule better" would be great if you can look into a crystal ball and figure out in May what the best games in October will be. But you can't, and it's idiotic to say that it's possible, or that the NFL does it better. This season alone, ESPN scheduled a MNF matchup between the Saints and Lions thinking both might be in the playoff conversation. Didn't turn out that way.

3. Things like "Colleges could partner with Google" ignores the economic reality that he himself says is coming. If ESPN overpaid for its content, why on Earth would Google ovepay for it? If Google isn't overpaying for it, how are the conferences making money as a business? Certainly not at the rates they were in the ESPN days.

Unbundling from cable means one thing and one thing only: content is becoming less universal. In the future you are less and less likely to experience sporting events that are mass events, like the Super Bowl or perhaps the NCAA men's basketball tournament, and more likely to tune into your local plugged-in interest off of an internet broadcast. In the old days, you'd turn on ESPN to see if something interesting happening in a game even though you didn't know beforehand that the game was going to be good. Just saying "the game will be on the internet" is not enough to make regular content into a mass event.

[BisonBacker]

ESPN is like any other company in that poor business decisions will affect them. This article isn't anything new. ESPN in their haste to eliminate the competition blew their wad on a bet that things would stay status quo over the next decade and that obviously isn't the case. Good leadership means being able to see or project with a certain degree of accuracy what the future will hold. The cord cutters may be the impetus to this but they aren't the only reason.

Greed on the part of the P5 cabal is partly to blame albeit hard to blame them when some idiots flash that kind of cash in front of them to turn it down. How you can say any college or pro sporting event is worth almost 6 billion dollars to televise it over the course of 12 years? First the contract was way to long. No way any reasonably intelligent person heading a corporation would think they could even marginally predict the ROI over 12 years on a product that is driven by consumer demand. I don't think you can fix it because the P5 has total control. It's no playoff it's a F'n poplularity contest. If they'd have a real tournament and yes include the G5 it would be much more interesting. But that will never happen. The P5 won't let it.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

More of the same stuff…unsubstantiated claims, sensationalistic title, and a dearth of facts.

Where's the proof ESPN is losing money on this stuff? Are any of the FBS conferences besides CUSA (who doesn't have a deal with ESPN in the first place) set to lose money on their next TV deal? I saw where the MAC is set to get a record $833k starting next year. The Sun Belt's deal will also likely go up in value when it's renegotiated in a few year as well.

I do realize that the CFP was a ratings disaster, but I don't think anyone doesn't believe that was because of the stupid decision to have the semifinal games on New Year's Eve instead of New Year's day. If anything changes it'll be on that front.

And of course there's the routine prediction of the P5 creating their own governing organization or subdivision. Like I have said many times here before, do people really think Alabama and Ohio State play G5 and FCS games as some kind of charity operation? All of them are free to schedule other major power 5 teams instead of FCS and G5 teams, yet they don't do that. And if the TV money dries up what incentive is there to only schedule other P5s?

[FormerPokeCenter]

ESPN's Longhorn Network sure worked out well ;)

[FormerPokeCenter]

Personally, I'd rather see the FCS SIDs get together and work collaboratively on streaming FCS games, sell some advertising and then tell ESPN, etc., to **** off.

Just put out our own product, with the radio announcers who cover the teams providing the commentary....The infrastructure's already in place in most locations...Might have to beef up on the bandwidth....hell, the broadcast journalism and mass com departments at most of the member colleges could provide interns for the undertaking, by giving them class credit for actually producing and putting out game day programing...

Yeah, I know...would never work...I'm just scattershot riffing...

[bertram]

Big Sky Conference picked http://eversport.tv as it's streaming partner. Downside to that is they don't do much other then host the feeds. Broadcast quality is up to the individual institutions, and it varies between crisp HD quality and grainy VHS depending on the host team's setup. Also development of mobile phone/ other platform apps is left to the Conference to develop (The Big Sky has yet to come up with a decent option).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Campus Insiders doesn't just produce a ton of streamable content over the internet - sometimes using students to help them out - they also stepped up to broadcast the Arizona Bowl when nobody else would.

But relying on Campus Insiders would mean that the only people watching the game would be the ones that want to take the time an energy to find it. I don't think that's what schools in FCS are looking for in terms of their championship. They want people who have never heard of North Dakota State or Jacksonville State to check them out.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Personally, I'd rather see the FCS SIDs get together and work collaboratively on streaming FCS games, sell some advertising and then tell ESPN, etc., to **** off.

Just put out our own product, with the radio announcers who cover the teams providing the commentary....The infrastructure's already in place in most locations...Might have to beef up on the bandwidth....hell, the broadcast journalism and mass com departments at most of the member colleges could provide interns for the undertaking, by giving them class credit for actually producing and putting out game day programing...

Yeah, I know...would never work...I'm just scattershot riffing...

I think it would and should work brother. I made a similar statement a few years ago when MPLS was going on about something along these lines and I said that it is getting to the point where FCS conferences should easily be able to afford the infrastructure for conference networks and streaming. It is coming man and I can not wait for ESPN to not have the power to **** with FCS as they do with the playoffs.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Big Sky Conference picked http://eversport.tv as it's streaming partner. Downside to that is they don't do much other then host the feeds. Broadcast quality is up to the individual institutions, and it varies between crisp HD quality and grainy VHS depending on the host team's setup. Also development of mobile phone/ other platform apps is left to the Conference to develop (The Big Sky has yet to come up with a decent option).

When we (radio show) interviewed Fullerton in the early part of the season he said that it was being worked on to improve all aspects of the sevice including having a replay ability and a basic minimum that all feeds from all schools would meet...soon.

[walliver]

The ESPN financial model is in trouble. Already, HBO and Showtime are available without a cable/satellite provider required. ESPN will likely do so at some point.
Currently, ESPN has the clout (quasi-monopoly) to force satellite/bale providers to bundle ESPN channels in with all but the most basic lifeline service. That model is not sustainable long-term. If, for example, half of subscribers choose to drop ESPN, ESPN would have to double rates to maintain current revenues.

Where the article veers off course is in its assumption that a P5 only schedule would boost ratings significantly. There are many fans who follow individual teams and would rather watch their team over a more competitive matchup. Going forward, I suspect ESPN will pay less to cover games, and shift much of their content to pay-per-view.

I doubt conference realignment will result from this, especially the realignment the article's author suggests. Why would the B1G and SEC raid the ACC and leave its perennial two best teams alone? Adding VT and NC State to the SEC would only be beneficial if the current ESPN model continues unchanged, and would be counter-productive if the changes he predicts actually come to pass.

[walliver]

Personally, I'd rather see the FCS SIDs get together and work collaboratively on streaming FCS games, sell some advertising and then tell ESPN, etc., to **** off.

Just put out our own product, with the radio announcers who cover the teams providing the commentary....The infrastructure's already in place in most locations...Might have to beef up on the bandwidth....hell, the broadcast journalism and mass com departments at most of the member colleges could provide interns for the undertaking, by giving them class credit for actually producing and putting out game day programing...

Yeah, I know...would never work...I'm just scattershot riffing...

This is likely the future of FCS football, but what seems to be missing from most conference-sponsored streaming is the ability to stream the games to smart TV's, blu-ray players, Roku boxes, Apple TV, Amazon TV's and Chromecast. I know there are work-arounds for that, but an easy "it just works" solution is required for such a venture to be successful.

[CID1990]

This is likely the future of FCS football, but what seems to be missing from most conference-sponsored streaming is the ability to stream the games to smart TV's, blu-ray players, Roku boxes, Apple TV, Amazon TV's and Chromecast. I know there are work-arounds for that, but an easy "it just works" solution is required for such a venture to be successful.

What has to happen for it to stream to smart TVs is the smart TV browsers need to be made more compatible with online video content. You can already watch YouTube on most smart TVs, they just need to support more plugins.

I agree it would be nice to not have to hook my laptop up to my TV to watch ESPN3 or SoCon network.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DFW HOYA]

I doubt conference realignment will result from this, especially the realignment the article's author suggests. Why would the B1G and SEC raid the ACC and leave its perennial two best teams alone?

Rutgers=New York media market
Maryland= DC/Baltimore markets

Virginia controls the Richmond the Tidewater media markets.
UNC dominates the Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro media markets
Georgia Tech has a presence, though not a majority, in Atlanta.

Any two of these schools extends the Big 10's media reach down I-95 in ways that Florida State or Clemson never could.

[Laker]

Rutgers=New York media market
Maryland= DC/Baltimore markets

Virginia controls the Richmond the Tidewater media markets.
UNC dominates the Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro media markets
Georgia Tech has a presence, though not a majority, in Atlanta.

Any two of these schools extends the Big 10's media reach down I-95 in ways that Florida State or Clemson never could.

In 2004 I was working the Maryland women's basketball camp and I asked the locals about the rumors of them joining the Big Ten. I was surprised to hear the outright enthusiasm for it. To me it made no geographic sense and all of their rivalries would be lost. It seems to have worked out for them. What I didn't figure was Rutgers. To me Syracuse had better athletics and seems to be "New York's Team". I was also surprised about Georgia Tech- not even close geographically but evidently Purdue has some kind of partnership with them academically.

Lord knows what will happen next. After Boise State and San Diego State were ready to join the Big East nothing made sense anymore.

[walliver]

Rutgers=New York media market
Maryland= DC/Baltimore markets

Virginia controls the Richmond the Tidewater media markets.
UNC dominates the Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro media markets
Georgia Tech has a presence, though not a majority, in Atlanta.

Any two of these schools extends the Big 10's media reach down I-95 in ways that Florida State or Clemson never could.

But, those additions only make sense if ESPN can maintain their current paradigm. If the changes outlined in the article linked in the first post come to pass, adding "markets" would not be beneficial.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

But, those additions only make sense if ESPN can maintain their current paradigm. If the changes outlined in the article linked in the first post come to pass, adding "markets" would not be beneficial.

In this new paradigm, every "market" is simply the "market" for that team, regardless of location. The issue is that nobody has figured out a way to make money from that yet.

[Catatonic]

Rutgers=New York media market
Maryland= DC/Baltimore markets

Virginia controls the Richmond the Tidewater media markets.
UNC dominates the Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro media markets
Georgia Tech has a presence, though not a majority, in Atlanta.

Any two of these schools extends the Big 10's media reach down I-95 in ways that Florida State or Clemson never could.


The NYT listed the 10 largest TV markets for college football, accounting not just for total population but the actual number of college football fans in each geographic area:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/19/us/fivethirtyeight-0919-geocolfootball-topTV/fivethirtyeight-0919-geocolfootball-topTV-blog480.png
As you rightly point out, in some markets a school in that city might not have the largest fan base. In Atlanta, the University of Georgia is a better draw than Georgia Tech. Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida and Tenn. fans are also found in abundance.

In Houston, Texas A&M and Texas are both more popular than the University of Houston. Lots of factors to consider.

[Catatonic]

But, those additions only make sense if ESPN can maintain their current paradigm. If the changes outlined in the article linked in the first post come to pass, adding "markets" would not be beneficial.

Yup. As long as ESPN is bound to cable and bundled, this works well....but times they are a changin.

[superman7515]

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/old-dominion/football/minium-conference-usa-needs-to-expand-jmu-georgia-state-are/article_c8d63f75-097a-5565-874a-3b595e311eec.html


Expansion isn’t likely to be a major topic of discussion when Conference USA presidents and athletic directors meet later this month in Boca Raton, Fla.With all due respect to the men and women who will gather around the table with much weightier degrees than me, that would be a mistake.

C-USA and other mid-major Football Bowl Subdivision leagues are rapidly losing ground to the Power 5 conferences, such as the ACC and SEC. The Power 5 have been granted autonomy by the NCAA to set the rules and soak up most of the television, bowl and NCAA tournament money.

Sitting idly by while the gap widens is not a smart option.

Expansion could help the C-USA overcome some of its inherent weaknesses. It is a far-flung league that needs to find a way to reduce growing travel costs and develop more regional rivalries. And it must become more attractive to television networks.

The two best schools available to help C-USA are James Madison and Georgia State.

This is a sensitive topic for C-USA officials, especially the league presidents. The league went through a painful bout of conference realignment a few years ago, losing seven schools to the American Athletic Conference. Among them were Memphis, East Carolina and Houston, each a key player. Nine newcomers replaced them, most of which are younger, urban institutions such as Old Dominion, UNC Charlotte and Texas-San Antonio.

Officials say they are weary of stealing schools from other leagues and don’t think it’s smart to further split scarce league revenue.

But we learned last week that the revenue pie is already shrinking. Conference USA can expect to lose about half of its $14 million of annual TV revenue when new contracts take effect in July...

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Doing so could save some real cash. ODU’s travel budget nearly doubled when it left the Colonial Athletic Association for C-USA – from $2.2 million in 2012-2013 to $4.1 million this school year. Travel now represents about 10 percent of ODU’s overall athletic spending.

The football team spent $194,690 on lodging, meals and travel for a trip to San Antonio this past season. A year earlier, the Monarchs spent nearly $500,000 combined on two road trips – to Rice and UTEP.

Those games came right after the Monarchs spent $33,267 to bus to a game at North Carolina State.

In all, ODU spent about $1.4 million on football travel this past season, nearly three times what the Monarchs spent in the CAA. And it’s not just football that’s spending more. Everyone’s budgets increased. Travel costs for women’s basketball –$192,905 in 2012-2013 – were projected to grow to $464,002 this season.

Man, who could have predicted that? xlolx

[Yote 53]

I feel like we are living in the Golden Days for college football on television and that is thanks to ESPN, a network I actually despise. In addition to going to Coyote games I also watch the Hawkeyes and then any and every football game on TV, especially the big games of the day. I just watch a lot of college football. Thanks to ESPN and the BTN we can stream college football games at our tailgate parties using ESPN3 or BTN2Go apps. Thanks to these networks and many others, along with my awesome Midcontinent cable provider, I have college football at my fingertips with the click of a button. Did I mention that our local cable provider, Midco Communications, has a regional sports network (MidcoSports) that allows all of us in the Dakotas in-depth coverage and games for USD, SDSU, and UND?

It is really going to suck when everything goes the streaming route and we have to hook up this Roku box here to HDMI2 and then that box there on HDMI1. It's no longer going to be click, boom, served right up to you in one nice package. It's going to actually suck for the consumers who are going to have to put up with all these issues and probably end up paying more, and it's going to suck for these conferences who want their content delivered right to your face. Nobody wants to have to seek this stuff out and schools should want the exposure of having their programming put right in the face of people who may not necessarily seek them out otherwise. All this "new way of doing things" you guys are talking about is good for none of us. The best part is, cord cutting is to blame, yet how many of these people are actually going without consuming the content? Very few. Instead they're just watching it at sports bars or "borrowing" a friends or relatives password.

I don't want this current system to change at all.

[BisonBacker]

More of the same stuff…unsubstantiated claims, sensationalistic title, and a dearth of facts.

Where's the proof ESPN is losing money on this stuff? Are any of the FBS conferences besides CUSA (who doesn't have a deal with ESPN in the first place) set to lose money on their next TV deal? I saw where the MAC is set to get a record $833k starting next year. The Sun Belt's deal will also likely go up in value when it's renegotiated in a few year as well.

I do realize that the CFP was a ratings disaster, but I don't think anyone doesn't believe that was because of the stupid decision to have the semifinal games on New Year's Eve instead of New Year's day. If anything changes it'll be on that front.

And of course there's the routine prediction of the P5 creating their own governing organization or subdivision. Like I have said many times here before, do people really think Alabama and Ohio State play G5 and FCS games as some kind of charity operation? All of them are free to schedule other major power 5 teams instead of FCS and G5 teams, yet they don't do that. And if the TV money dries up what incentive is there to only schedule other P5s?


Well coming from a fan of a team now in what surely is considered the cellar of the FBS it doesn't surprise me you take that position. But to say unsubstantiated claimes? Dearth of facts? How about these facts.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-longhorn-network-is-all-hat-no-cattle-051115



Given that ESPN has guaranteed Texas in the neighborhood of $15 million a year and the costs to launch and run the network were substantial, this also means ESPN has lost money every year the Longhorn Network has existed. Those losses likely run into the tens of millions of dollars so far. And while the Longhorns were guaranteed a payment that averages $15 million a year and ESPN isn't bouncing checks, the rumored millions of additional dollars that could materialize from a successful network are not ever going to arrive.There are roughly 100 million cable and satellite subscribers in the country, and just over 6 percent of them are paying more than a quarter a year for the LHN, according to SNL Kagan. Even by ESPN's own internal numbers a tiny segment of the cable and satellite audience has access to the channel. That's disappointing for Texas, because the Longhorn Network was launched as a major national recruiting tool. The Longhorn Network was also supposed to make Texas a national brand. Unfortunately for Texas, the SEC Network is in 69 million paying homes. The Big Ten Network is in 62 million paying homes. And all of those subscribers are paying a lot more than a quarter a year to the conferences.
Why has the Longhorn Network been the farthest thing from must-see television in cable sports history? It's the programming, stupid. ESPN and Texas gambled that a couple of football games, a bevy of other less popular sporting events and rabid coverage of their local team would be as popular as oil in the Lone Star State. The problem was this: Even the most diehard Texas fan can watch only so many softball games and swim meets. Football's the life blood of televised college sports. And the Longhorn Network never had enough football to get fan demand stoked to a high level. This was a dry oil well priced as a gusher.

Or look at these dismal numbers....

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/espn-has-lost-7-million-subscribers-the-past-two-years-112515



According to a 10K filing from Disney today, which you can read here, ESPN now has 92 million subscribers (https://cdn.thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy15-form-10k.pdf). That's a troubling number because just two years ago ESPN reported it had 99 million subscribers (https://cdn.thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy13-form-10k.pdf) in the same 10k filing. The last time ESPN had 92 million subscribers was 2006 (https://cdn.thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy06form-10k.pdf), so the past two years have erased the previous seven years of subscriber growth. These filings are important because it's the first public acknowledgement of ESPN's massive subscriber losses. Given that the average ESPN subscriber pays $6.61 a channel per month, this means that ESPN has lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $550 million in subscriber revenue per year since 2013. (That's not counting advertising dollar losses.) Moreover, the decline in subscribers over the past two years is also hitting ESPN2, a loss of 7 million subscribers, ESPNNews, a loss of six million subscribers, ESPN Classic, a loss of six million subscribers, and ESPNU, a loss of four million subscribers.Add it all up and ESPN is bringing in somewhere around $700 million less in subscriber revenue from these channels than it did in 2013


I found that information just doing a quick search of ESPN. I'm sure there is a whole lot more I could find but to say it's "dearth of facts" is just ignorant.

[superman7515]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160114/06532833339/56-would-drop-espn-heartbeat-if-it-meant-saving-8-month-cable.shtml


Over the last year, ESPN's decision to laugh off cord cutting has truly come home to roost. The company has had to engage in numerous "belt tightening measures" after losing around 7 million subscribers in just two years (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151130/06531832943/espn-ignored-cord-cutting-threat-paid-it-with-huge-viewership-losses.shtml). Where are these subscribers going? Many are cutting the TV cord entirely. Others are opting for so-called "skinny bundles" that pull pricier channels like ESPN out of the core cable lineup, moving them to additional, premium channel packs. Companies like Verizon that have experimented with skinny bundles have been rewarded for their efforts with withlawsuits (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150427/11334530812/espn-sues-verizon-trying-to-give-consumers-what-they-want.shtml) from ESPN.

But there's every indication things will be getting worse for our friends at Disney and ESPN.

A new study commissioned by BTIG Research and analyst Rich Greenfield (http://www.btigresearch.com/2016/01/13/survey-says-espn-vastly-overearning-and-incapable-of-going-direct-to-consumer-fadetheforce/) (registration required) found that 56% of those surveyed would happily ditch ESPN if it meant saving them $8 a month. 60% of females say they would ditch the channel for the $8 discount, while 49% of males would do the same. And while ESPN could pursue a standalone streaming service, 85% of those polled say they wouldn't subscribe at $20 a month, even if it bundled in all of the additional ESPN channels such as ESPN 2 and ESPN 3.

And there are some additional problems with ESPN pursuing a standalone streaming platform. ESPN's recent lawsuit (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150427/11334530812/espn-sues-verizon-trying-to-give-consumers-what-they-want.shtml) against Verizon revealed that many of the channel's contracts with cable operators restrict them from breaking ESPN out of the core cable bundle; a provision that is nullified if ESPN offers a streaming version of its own. So ESPN could accelerate its own evolution in the face of cord cutting and go straight to consumers, but (at least initially) it would greatly accelerate the company's losses as more cable operators pull ESPN out of the core channel lineup.

[clenz]

Where ESPN is losing people is with the push towards being the CNN/Fox News of sports. Shoving people like Bayless, Stephen A., Cowherd when he was there, etc...

They become a shock jock version of a sports news agency. It's pushing people away, coupled with the availability of streaming any even you could imagine for free.

When I had cable I only watched ESPN for live sports. Now I just use ESPN3 (through my in-laws cable account...ha...screw you ESPN. Many people do that as well...not just ESPN, but HGTV, TNT, TBS, Fox Sports, Big Ten Network, NBCSN, etc... all offer streaming but you need an active cable account to verify. One person has an account and a handful of people use the log in and split the bill each month).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

In ways I wonder if these articles are a bit of an overreaction. Cord-cutting will not continue at this pace and the truth is any advertiser would kill for the potential of a 92 million subscriber audience.

Let's pretend a "doomsday scenario", that number of subscribers goes down to 80 million in 5 more years. (Personally I think that's not a realistic number. This would assume the same rate of droppage. I think that rate will not be sustained.) 80 million is still a massive slice of the TV-consuming public. That's still a boatload of leverage for advertising. Is it enough to continue to laughingly overspend on content, such as the NBA and CFP? No. But it's plenty enough to thrive and keep generating solid paychecks for Disney.

Many, many times I have heard that the death of cable is "just around the corner". Certainly more people are cutting the cord now because they're able to. The people who have been burning to cut the cord to save $8 a month on ESPN now can, sorta, save money (at the cost of the inconvenience of streaming). But to say that they represent a majority, I think, is a mistake. Milennials cord-cut, but someone, somewhere is paying for ESPN when they want it - whether through their internet provider, their family, or somewhere else. There is a huge disconnect in regards to who's paying for what.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Where ESPN is losing people is with the push towards being the CNN/Fox News of sports. Shoving people like Bayless, Stephen A., Cowherd when he was there, etc...

They become a shock jock version of a sports news agency. It's pushing people away, coupled with the availability of streaming any even you could imagine for free.

When I had cable I only watched ESPN for live sports. Now I just use ESPN3 (through my in-laws cable account...ha...screw you ESPN. Many people do that as well...not just ESPN, but HGTV, TNT, TBS, Fox Sports, Big Ten Network, NBCSN, etc... all offer streaming but you need an active cable account to verify. One person has an account and a handful of people use the log in and split the bill each month).

Real good points, and I agree with all of them. Look for ESPN to hunker down and do a better job "protecting" ESPN3.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

Well coming from a fan of a team now in what surely is considered the cellar of the FBS it doesn't surprise me you take that position. But to say unsubstantiated claimes? Dearth of facts? How about these facts.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-longhorn-network-is-all-hat-no-cattle-051115

Or look at these dismal numbers....

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/espn-has-lost-7-million-subscribers-the-past-two-years-112515

I found that information just doing a quick search of ESPN. I'm sure there is a whole lot more I could find but to say it's "dearth of facts" is just ignorant.

Yes….and how does that translate to another major conference realignment?

If large TV deals aren't going to be as lucrative in the future, then the only reason for having super conferences and having the P5 scheduling only P5 games for non-conference games goes out the window.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/what-happens-to-conference-networks-if-cord-cutting-accelerates-012016


WSJ: Would it be feasible to offer the entire ESPN network online to cord-cutters? Some analysts estimate you'd need to charge $30 a month.

Mr. Skipper: We are still engaged in the most successful business model in the history of media, and see no reason to abandon it. We're going to be delivering our content through the traditional cable bundle, through a lighter bundle, through Dish's Sling TV, through new over-the-top distributors, and through some content that is direct-to-consumer.


WSJ: What kinds of direct-to-consumer offerings?


Mr. Skipper: Last year, we tested this model when we sold the Cricket World Cup direct-to-consumer. We sold 100,000 subscriptions for a hundred dollars apiece. It worked beautifully. We are interested in "multisport"—aggregating a bunch of content and delivering it over the top and charging a subscription fee, or an individual price for an individual game or season.


WSJ: Was the cricket offering profitable?


Mr. Skipper: Yes.


I'd encourage you to read the whole article, where it details pretty compelling math that the P5 won't be expanding any time soon.

[superman7515]

Sounds like moving more small events to pay-per-view, not a favorable condition for the consumer.

[dgtw]

C-USA and the Sun Belt should get together and put all the eastern teams in one league and the western ones in the other. That would save everyone a ton on travel costs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Laker]

It could be done.

CUSA
UAB
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Louisiana Tech
Marshall
Middle Tennessee State
UN-Charlotte
North Texas
Old Dominion
Rice
Southern Miss
UTEP
UTSA
Western Kentucky

Sunbelt
Ap State
Arkansas-Little Rock (no football)
Arkansas State
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
LA-Lafayette
LA-Monroe
South Alabama
UT-Arlington (no football)
Texas State
Troy

Football- Idaho and New Mexico State

Coastal Carolina will be joining.

[Laker]

You could split them like this. It would help out the non-football sports.

East
UAB
Ap State
Coastal Carolina
FL Atlantic
FL Int
GA Southern
GA State
Marshall
Mid TN
NC-Charlotte
Old Dominion
South Alabama
Troy
Western KY

West
UALR (no football)
Arkansas State
LALA
ULM
LA Tech
North Texas
Rice
Southern Miss
UTA (no football)
UTEP
UTSA
Texas State

Idaho & NM State in the West. If Idaho is smart, they go to the Big Sky.

[Mayville Bison]

In ways I wonder if these articles are a bit of an overreaction. Cord-cutting will not continue at this pace and the truth is any advertiser would kill for the potential of a 92 million subscriber audience.

Let's pretend a "doomsday scenario", that number of subscribers goes down to 80 million in 5 more years. (Personally I think that's not a realistic number. This would assume the same rate of droppage. I think that rate will not be sustained.) 80 million is still a massive slice of the TV-consuming public. That's still a boatload of leverage for advertising. Is it enough to continue to laughingly overspend on content, such as the NBA and CFP? No. But it's plenty enough to thrive and keep generating solid paychecks for Disney.

Many, many times I have heard that the death of cable is "just around the corner". Certainly more people are cutting the cord now because they're able to. The people who have been burning to cut the cord to save $8 a month on ESPN now can, sorta, save money (at the cost of the inconvenience of streaming). But to say that they represent a majority, I think, is a mistake. Milennials cord-cut, but someone, somewhere is paying for ESPN when they want it - whether through their internet provider, their family, or somewhere else. There is a huge disconnect in regards to who's paying for what.

May have already been said, but you missed the bigger picture here. It's not necessarily the cord-cutters that are behind this, but how can ESPN leverage this big piece of the largely untapped market.

Netflix customers freaked out when they took away the DVD option. How many are complaining about that now? They have started to escalate charges for HD streaming service (thankfully I'm locked in at a lower price for a little while longer). Eventually, most with an HD TV will up their subscription to include HD, so that's increased revenue.

ESPN has the streaming started. They just need a way to make it widely available and have it be the standard live sports delivery service. Make it a free (or very cheap) subscription and make most of the money from ads and they will have a monopoly on all sporting events.

It's not about having to react to what's already happened. It's not even about planning for the future. It's about SHAPING the future if you go be the first one to jump all-in.

[caribbeanhen]

ESPN's Longhorn Network sure worked out well ;)

I thought that was a Steakhouse

[superman7515]

I thought that was a Steakhouse

Decent prime rib but how they managed to screw up a baked potato that badly is mind boggling.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

May have already been said, but you missed the bigger picture here. It's not necessarily the cord-cutters that are behind this, but how can ESPN leverage this big piece of the largely untapped market.

Netflix customers freaked out when they took away the DVD option. How many are complaining about that now? They have started to escalate charges for HD streaming service (thankfully I'm locked in at a lower price for a little while longer). Eventually, most with an HD TV will up their subscription to include HD, so that's increased revenue.

ESPN has the streaming started. They just need a way to make it widely available and have it be the standard live sports delivery service. Make it a free (or very cheap) subscription and make most of the money from ads and they will have a monopoly on all sporting events.

It's not about having to react to what's already happened. It's not even about planning for the future. It's about SHAPING the future if you go be the first one to jump all-in.

This sounds a lot like newspapers a decade ago. "We need to shape the future!" A decade later, newspapers are still trying to figure out how to make money from online content.

The ESPN example is not about how to make money from the internet. ESPN already does make some money off the internet. The issue is that it doesn't make nearly as much margin on internet content as it does on cable boxes. Nobody has solved that riddle yet.

[Mayville Bison]

This sounds a lot like newspapers a decade ago. "We need to shape the future!" A decade later, newspapers are still trying to figure out how to make money from online content.

The ESPN example is not about how to make money from the internet. ESPN already does make some money off the internet. The issue is that it doesn't make nearly as much margin on internet content as it does on cable boxes. Nobody has solved that riddle yet.

That's exactly why I used the Netflix example. They were a market leader with DVD "rentals" with their mailing option but had plenty of competition with the blockbusters and other rental places of the world. They could have kept doing what they were good at, but they revolutionized the business and now where are the Blockbusters?

I'm not saying they should ditch cable completely because that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. The last thing they would want is to get beat to the mainstream streaming option and get beat on a huge deal - NCAA men's basketball tournament for example. For me to be able to stream any of the 65 games of the tournament for free (without a cable subscription) is a huge deal. Can you imagine if NFL Sunday ticket were a free option? What if the same thing was available for college football games?

[clenz]

FWIW, it is a free option.

You just need to know where to look.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Here's something else: Nobody knows who is going to win in the video business.

People are pumping up Netflix as a success story. Yes, they are a success story, however their continued longevity is far from assured. HBO, Netflix, Amazon... they are all running into the same headwinds. HBO is just as dependent on cable boxes for revenue. Netflix has some very good shows it's produced, but they need to keep constantly creating blockbusters in order to simply hold the subscriber base they have - their entire growth strategy is to grow internationally, they pretty much can't expand any more in the US. Amazon's may have the best chance of surviving simply because they are one of the largest companies in the world, aren't dependent on Amazon Video to survive, and can afford to play a long game. Even then, Amazon's service is tied with Prime and isn't a stand-alone thing, which is a pretty good indication that Amazon doesn't think it's profitable enough in its own right to stand on its own.

clenz is also 100% on point. It's way too easy to get around their security, share passwords, etc. The business model currently for online video is to get your mom and dad to pay for it, basically.

[Mayville Bison]

Here's something else: Nobody knows who is going to win in the video business.

People are pumping up Netflix as a success story. Yes, they are a success story, however their continued longevity is far from assured. HBO, Netflix, Amazon... they are all running into the same headwinds. HBO is just as dependent on cable boxes for revenue. Netflix has some very good shows it's produced, but they need to keep constantly creating blockbusters in order to simply hold the subscriber base they have - their entire growth strategy is to grow internationally, they pretty much can't expand any more in the US. Amazon's may have the best chance of surviving simply because they are one of the largest companies in the world, aren't dependent on Amazon Video to survive, and can afford to play a long game. Even then, Amazon's service is tied with Prime and isn't a stand-alone thing, which is a pretty good indication that Amazon doesn't think it's profitable enough in its own right to stand on its own.

clenz is also 100% on point. It's way too easy to get around their security, share passwords, etc. The business model currently for online video is to get your mom and dad to pay for it, basically.

The point you are making is Netflix must continue to evolve in order to see continued success, correct? That's exactly what I'm suggesting ESPN will need to do in the future. What they have is working right now, and to be completely honest, they may be too big to fail at this point. A subscription-based model, whether it is tied to cable boxes or a streaming model, will always have the "sharing logins" situation. I currently share my Netflix and cable log ins with multiple people and have never had an issue.

The way to make more money is to either gain more paying subscribers (overseas option you mention above), tie it into other packages people are already paying for (Amazon Prime you mention above is a great example), or to get more money out of advertisements. If you are streaming what's on television, you already have commercials built in, but you can also add so much more when you are dealing with the internet (think Google Adwords).

Pretty sure we are all talking about the same thing here, but still fun to see if we can figure out what things will look like in 10 years.

[UNIFanSince1983]

Sling.tv does not allow sharing of your login. It only allows it to be watched on one device at a time.

Netflix allows sharing, but you can only watch on a limited amount of devices at a time as well. You have to pay extra if you want more than 2 devices at once.

Honestly ESPN seems to be well ahead of the curve when it comes to their streaming options. Xbox, Sling and so on. I think they will continue to succeed. I can even stream watch ESPN from my devices to my TV with chromecast. There are a lot of apps (Fox Sports in particular) that do not allow that yet. The way people consume is changing and I am positive the networks will change with it.

[clenz]

Here's something else: Nobody knows who is going to win in the video business.

People are pumping up Netflix as a success story. Yes, they are a success story, however their continued longevity is far from assured. HBO, Netflix, Amazon... they are all running into the same headwinds. HBO is just as dependent on cable boxes for revenue. Netflix has some very good shows it's produced, but they need to keep constantly creating blockbusters in order to simply hold the subscriber base they have - their entire growth strategy is to grow internationally, they pretty much can't expand any more in the US. Amazon's may have the best chance of surviving simply because they are one of the largest companies in the world, aren't dependent on Amazon Video to survive, and can afford to play a long game. Even then, Amazon's service is tied with Prime and isn't a stand-alone thing, which is a pretty good indication that Amazon doesn't think it's profitable enough in its own right to stand on its own.

clenz is also 100% on point. It's way too easy to get around their security, share passwords, etc. The business model currently for online video is to get your mom and dad to pay for it, basically.Or it's a way to incentive people towards prime.

[clenz]

Sling.tv does not allow sharing of your login. It only allows it to be watched on one device at a time.

Netflix allows sharing, but you can only watch on a limited amount of devices at a time as well. You have to pay extra if you want more than 2 devices at once.

Honestly ESPN seems to be well ahead of the curve when it comes to their streaming options. Xbox, Sling and so on. I think they will continue to succeed. I can even stream watch ESPN from my devices to my TV with chromecast. There are a lot of apps (Fox Sports in particular) that do not allow that yet. The way people consume is changing and I am positive the networks will change with it.
There was a time, not long ago, Netflix only allowed one stream at a time.

[walliver]

I remember when Chatty and WCU always had the highest "ranked" classes in the SoCon and were then lucky to win 2 conference games apiece. At times, I wondered if Wagner and Allison recruited based on star rankings. The key to success at the FCS level is to find the diamonds in the rough. Players who are "too small" for the SEC, but play with big hearts, as well as late bloomers.