ESPN, Dead Channel Walking? LINK!!

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

OCTOBER 2016
In the past five years ESPN has lost 11,346,000 subscribers according to Nielsen data. If you combine that with ESPN2 and ESPNU subscriber losses this means that ESPN has lost over a billion dollars in cable and satellite revenue just in the past five years, an average of $200 million each year. That total of a billion dollars hits ESPN in the pocketbook not just on a yearly basis, but for every year going forward. It's gone forever. That's not just bad, this is downright cataclysmic. And it's getting worse. In the past year ESPN lost 4.159 million subscribers, that's another $350 million in lost revenue across the ESPN family of networks..........................So where are all these subscribers going? A good theory posited by SportsTVRatings is that the loss is happening three ways, 1. death, 2. cord nevers and 3. cord cutters. Let me unpack those three: first, older people are dying off and they're more likely to subscribe to cable than younger people, second, many younger people don't subscribe to cable at all, hence they're cord nevers and third, many of you are also cutting the cord to save money. Combine all three of these factors and all are working against the cable and satellite bundle.

So let's talk about the ESPN business model. I've written a ton about this, but on its most basic level every channel has a cost in your cable bill. You don't realize it because your cable bill isn't broken down by individual channel cost, but ESPN is by far the most expensive channel on all our cable bills. (ESPN is the most expensive channel costing $6.60 a month. The second most expensive? TNT, which costs just $1.65 a month). Every single cable and satellite subscriber pays around $80 a year for ESPN. With 88.7 million subscribers, that means ESPN pockets around $7 billion a year just in cable and satellite subscription fees. So what makes sports on cable TV a bubble? The fact that ESPN uses the money it receives from cable and satellite subscribers to buy sports rights. And the vast majority of those cable and satellite subscribers never watch ESPN. Your Aunt Gladys, who hasn't watched a sporting event in a decade, pays the same amount for ESPN as you do. What does ESPN do with that money from you and Aunt Gladys and its other 88 million subscribers? It buys sports rights. Presently ESPN is on the hook for the following yearly rights payments: $1.9 billion a year to the NFL for Monday Night Football, $1.47 billion to the NBA, $700 million to Major League Baseball, $608 million for the College Football Playoff, $225 million to the ACC, $190 million to the Big Ten, $120 million -- and potentially growing -- to the Big 12, $125 million a year to the PAC 12, and hundreds of millions more to the SEC. At an absolute minimum it would appear that ESPN presently pays out nearly $6 billion a year to sports leagues just in rights fees. At 73 million subscribers -- our projection for 2021 based on the past five years of subscriber losses -- ESPN would be bringing in just over $6 billion a year in yearly subscriber fees. Sure, advertising money and ESPN2 and ESPNU have to be factored in as well, but you'd also have to add in every other cost that ESPN has to run multiple networks, employee salaries, technology, everything that a major corporation with thousands of worldwide employees has to keep up. And, importantly, you also have to factor in this, ESPN's Monday Night Football contract expires at the end of 2021. Right when current projections would have them hitting just 73 million subscribers...............................

I'm not against ESPN -- or certainly FS1 or NBCSN or CBSSN or any other sports cable channel -- I just see the collapse of the cable and satellite bundle as a major story that most in the sports industry are ignoring. When the bubble officially pops -- and it may well have already popped without most realizing it -- it's going to change everything about sports -- team revenue and player salaries will plummet and the way that average fans consume sports will change rapidly. ESPN isn't going to be the only company hit by the popping of the sports bubble either, but it will be the most significantly impacted by far. Let me explain. Let's use FS1 as an example. FS1 brings in around $1 a month in cable and subscriber revenue. This past year FS1, like virtually all cable channels, lost subscribers. FS1 lost 1.6 million subscribers last year, roughly a third of ESPN's losses. That's not ideal, but that loss cost FS1 $19.2 million in overall revenue compared to ESPN's loss of $350 million. NBCSN and CBSSN lose much less money because they're much smaller businesses and, quite frankly, don't make that much off their cable networks.............cable and satellite bundle is collapsing?
Read The end Of ESPN At The Rest Of The Link...
LINK:
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-4-million-subscribers-in-past-year-080416

FEB 2017
ESPN again cited as factor in Disney revenue drop, while Bob Iger may stay on past 2018
Another Disney earnings call led to another miss on analysts' expectations (in revenue this time), and again led to ESPN being cited as a reason for the miss................Cable Networks revenues for the quarter decreased 2% to $4.4 billion and operating income decreased 11% to $0.9 billion. The decrease in operating income was due to a decrease at ESPN..........
LINK:
http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-disney-revenue-drop-iger-stay-past-2018.html

 

[topdecktiger]

All of that is true, but it's not an ESPN problem. All the other channels have the same problem. People put ESPN in the headline, but that's misleading.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

UPDATED: February 7, 2017 at 6:51 am
College Hotline: The Pac-12’s expanding revenue deficit relative to SEC, Big Ten:
Before we dig in, let’s first provide the standard (but critical) reminder: The Power Five conferences don’t release their finances at the same time, which makes comparisons a tad tricky. The Pac-12 won’t make its FY16 financial information available until May. (It operates on a 10-month lag.) We know its FY15 distributions, but estimates are required for FY16 at this point............

And the Hotline’s estimates call for a slight year-over-year uptick:
Fiscal year 2015 school distributions (all figures confirmed):
SEC: $32.7 million
Big Ten: $32.4 million
Pac-12: $25.1 million

Fiscal year 2016 school distributions
SEC: $40 million (confirmed)
Big Ten: $35 million (approximate)
Pac-12: $27 million (approximate)
.......................Remember: The Big Ten’s new Tier 1 deal begins in 2017-18, and it’s also a whopper, averaging $440 million per year..........

Fiscal year 2017-18 school distributions …
Big Ten: $45 million (estimate)
SEC: $43 million (estimate)
Pac-12: $31 million (estimate).....................
.......To be sure, the Pac-12 will never get the same Tier 1 deal as the SEC/Big Ten because of the difference in eyeballs, and it is the Hotline’s belief that commissioner Larry Scott got the very best deal from ESPN and Fox that was available at the time (thanks to Comcast’s entry into the bidding).

But the Pac-12 Networks are a different issue, because the conference chose one model over another. Scott believes 100 percent ownership places the conference in perfect position to take advantage of consumer trends and new technologies when the Tier 1 deal is renegotiated prior to the FY24 expiration. The Pac-12, at that point, will have all of its content available for the highest bidder/best deal, whether that’s ESPN, Fox, Google, Apple, Facebook, Netflix, etc.
LINK:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/...ding-revenue-deficit-relative-to-sec-big-ten/

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

All of that is true, but it's not an ESPN problem. All the other channels have the same problem. People put ESPN in the headline, but that's misleading.

Not when you consider ESPN is highest $6.50 Costs on Cable Bills, and losing Subscribers hurts them being the Highest Revenue! Disney's Profits were off due to ESPN, what is misleading?

New FCC Commissioner will advance other Technology competing with Cable too. Sports Ratings in 2016 too Nosedives and Headlines not just in this Article but Forbes, Fortunes, Bloomberg, this is just the beginning. But ESPN biggest content is Sports?

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Well, to be fair, it is an ESPN problem because of the advantage the worldwide leader has in the current landscape.

Obviously cord-cutting is a cable television issue and not solely in ESPN issue. I'm sure that was your point and it's correct.

However, when you were making far more money than any other cable channel and the cable industry itself is under siege, it's absolutely a major issue for your company.

 

[Black Panther]

What happened was all these league networks as listed above.I told a cousin of mine when the btn network first came into being that it would be the ruination of college sports.Yes,it was big business before networks, but it's all money grubbing now as listed above.Especially the originators the btn.And that's also why we've had all the expansion in to markets way out of common conference footprints.It's why Maryland is in the big ? and Colorado is in the pac 12 and so on and so forth.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Well, to be fair, it is an ESPN problem because of the advantage the worldwide leader has in the current landscape.

Obviously cord-cutting is a cable television issue and not solely in ESPN issue. I'm sure that was your point and it's correct.

However, when you were making far more money than any other cable channel and the cable industry itself is under siege, it's absolutely a major issue for your company.

I only put up one article and that was from last year, when there were many that augmented what you just said. There were many articles also how in 2015 and early 2106, how ESPN has cut ties with Major Sports Personalities. These shows are now being produced with others footing the bills on costs.

Then I looked for more updated just this past month and more up to date, they confirmed the problems too. It is not a aberration, but a trend still bleeding and the NFL is confronting it with Advertisers and participation in Pop Warner Leagues are down substantially too.

Disney that owns ESPN is not just not going to just sit there and keep letting their Forecasts and Sports Bleed Disney Projections and Bottom Lines off, that has Investment Consequences, not to mention Executive Replacements.

When I spent some time with Yahoo People that worked with the NFL and mention Sports, they told me it is far small part of profits, and not looking at that direction with Verizon as many expected and suspected. The New Technologies are changing many things and the Articles above are proof of it.

 

[topdecktiger]

Not when you consider ESPN is highest $6.50 Costs on Cable Bills, and losing Subscribers hurts them being the Highest Revenue! Disney's Profits were off due to ESPN, what is misleading?

New FCC Commissioner will advance other Technology competing with Cable too. Sports Ratings in 2016 too Nosedives and Headlines not just in this Article but Forbes, Fortunes, Bloomberg, this is just the beginning. But ESPN biggest content is Sports?

What is misleading is this. The losses are based on absolute numbers, rather than relative numbers. The only way to make an accurate comparison is in relative terms.

Last year, ESPN lost about $327 million in subscription revenue last year. That's about a 5% drop. FS1 lost about $32 million. That's about a 2% drop. So, ESPN lost about 5% or revenue, and Fox lost about 2%. That's not much difference. That 2% loss hurts Fox about as much as the 5% hurts ESPN.

Well, to be fair, it is an ESPN problem because of the advantage the worldwide leader has in the current landscape.

Obviously cord-cutting is a cable television issue and not solely in ESPN issue. I'm sure that was your point and it's correct.

However, when you were making far more money than any other cable channel and the cable industry itself is under siege, it's absolutely a major issue for your company.

But like I just pointed out, the other channels are losing subscribers (and revenue) at basically the same relative rate as ESPN. So, let's just say ESPN's revenue eventually gets cut by 50%. Well, everybody else is basically going to lose 50% as well, so they will all still be the same distance away from each other. In other words, instead of ESPN being 8' tall and FS1 6', ESPN would shrink to 5' tall, and FS1 to 3'.

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

Anyone have the cliffs notes version?

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Cliff Notes: (1) No seperate ACC network channel.
(2) Decreasing TV revenue to ACC and thus less ACC dollars to Pitt.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

What happened was all these league networks as listed above.I told a cousin of mine when the btn network first came into being that it would be the ruination of college sports.Yes,it was big business before networks, but it's all money grubbing now as listed above.Especially the originators the btn.And that's also why we've had all the expansion in to markets way out of common conference footprints.It's why Maryland is in the big ? and Colorado is in the pac 12 and so on and so forth.

Yep, and when I was at Stanford's Hoover's Institute and met with some other people how they are ahead of that game and why they lower the Stadium from 89,000 that was built for Fans that no longer came to games except 48,0000 of them. They rebuilt a Stadium of 50,000 but built for Corporate Sponsors, Big Buck Boosters, Top High Tech Innovations to Advance and Sound Second to None. They said the Big Days of sold out 80,000+ Stadiums are over and too costly to maintain on Game Days when not sold out and that happen more and more.

When I brought up how and why did PAC-12 end up going owning 100% of it PAC-12 Channel versus SEC & BIG TEN, they said they know the future and it is not built on Big Ten Channel Model. They expected ESPN and others will renegotiate the next 6 to 8 TV cable Deals and it is in every contract to do it. They said once New High Tech comes approved by the FCC and it is on the way, Cable will have a slow death but death nonetheless.

They says that is hidden advantage of PAC-12 that will reduced Costs far Faster and Increase Revenues far Higher than BIG TEN & SEC that are tied to Cable Networks and can't change as fast.

What seem great today and right now is like a slow moving Dinosaur that needs to eat more as it grows more, and can't adapt when others can change faster and lower the need for consumption while being more efficient in finding more food.

PItt and Penn State have not played since 2000, but in 2016 it was sold out, in 2017 I predict expect Standing Room Sell out of 110,000!

The NFL Figured it out in 1970s, have games clsoer to together geographically brings more Fans and still keep key rivalries like Dallas-Washing, Dallas--Philly, College Football will come to understand too.

Cable Subscribers was the Big New Thing in early 2000's when CFB Costs were growing 5 Times CFB Revenues, and changed it, and it became about increasing cable Subscribers Market Locations Demographics and it worked, but now as Cable Subscribers start to leave and CFB Operational Costs are higher than ever, that Model is going into a slow Bleed and will need a change.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Cliff Notes: (1) No seperate ACC network channel.
(2) Decreasing TV revenue to ACC and thus less ACC dollars to Pitt.

Not really, read some links to think. No one can improve another man's mind only he can.

Dr.Von & Black Panther gets some of it and the ACC-ESPN Channel has an advantage since it is being completed as these developments are happening and have a say to adapt to PAC-12 innovations. PAC-12 future too. Big-12 may not be around. SEC & BIG TEN doing just fine now and NFL too, but if more Cable Subscribers keep leaving, they are not immune. According to COMcor 65% of Total Digital Media is now spent on Mobile.

 

[topdecktiger]

Yep, and when I was at Stanford's Hoover's Institute and met with some other people how they are ahead of that game and why they lower the Stadium from 89,000 that was built for Fans that no longer came to games except 48,0000 of them. They rebuilt a Stadium of 50,000 but built for Corporate Sponsors, Big Buck Boosters, Top High Tech Innovations to Advance and Sound Second to None. They said the Big Days of sold out 80,000+ Stadiums are over and too costly to maintain on Game Days when not sold out and that happen more and more.

When I brought up how and why did PAC-12 end up going owning 100% of it PAC-12 Channel versus SEC & BIG TEN, they said they know the future and it is not built on Big Ten Channel Model. They expected ESPN and others will renegotiate the next 6 to 8 TV cable Deals and it is in every contract to do it. They said once New High Tech comes approved by the FCC and it is on the way, Cable will have a slow death but death nonetheless.

They says that is hidden advantage of PAC-12 that will reduced Costs far Faster and Increase Revenues far Higher than BIG TEN & SEC that are tied to Cable Networks and can't change as fast.

What seem great today and right now is like a slow moving Dinosaur that needs to eat more as it grows more, and can't adapt when others can change faster and lower the need for consumption while being more efficient in finding more food.

PItt and Penn State have not played since 2000, but in 2016 it was sold out, in 2017 I predict expect Standing Room Sell out of 110,000!

The NFL Figured it out in 1970s, have games clsoer to together geographically brings more Fans and still keep key rivalries like Dallas-Washing, Dallas--Philly, College Football will come to understand too.

Cable Subscribers was the Big New Thing in early 2000's when CFB Costs were growing 5 Times CFB Revenues, and changed it, and it became about increasing cable Subscribers Market Locations Demographics and it worked, but now as Cable Subscribers start to leave and CFB Operational Costs are higher than ever, that Model is going into a slow Bleed and will need a change.

The Pac 12 isn't better situated. I'll agree with you that the TV industry is going to change, but it's not going to improve the Pac 12 network. They still have the same fundamental problem, whether it's on cable or streaming: lack of interest. The Pac 12 won't get better. The SEC & Big Ten will just come back to the pack.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

"topdecktiger, post: 1806395, member: 3806"]
The Pac 12 isn't better situated.
Agree and disagree, they have short term problems just like the article and you said, but they can control and adapt far faster and hook up wit New More Powerful Partners than the others that are intertwined with the cable networks and no so hard to walk away from is how it was told to me.

I'll agree with you that the TV industry is going to change, but it's not going to improve the Pac 12 network. They still have the same fundamental problem, whether it's on cable or streaming: lack of interest. The Pac 12 won't get better.
Again, agree in short term, but long term can adapt with 100% control.

The SEC & Big Ten will just come back to the pack.
Corporate Structure Partners do not adapt as fast to changes. Apple makes more than all silicon valley Big Firms combine, and those Firms and New Ones, are doing bad either. Disney-ESPN & FOX, GE-NBC won't be determining the change is how it was told to me? Movie Studios are shaking in their boots too, and not just because China is after them, but what China will do in the future with their own High Tech Base.

 

[topdecktiger]

"topdecktiger, post: 1806395, member: 3806"]
The Pac 12 isn't better situated.
Agree and disagree, they have short term problems just like the article and you said, but they can control and adapt far faster and hook up wit New More Powerful Partners than the others that are intertwined with the cable networks and no so hard to walk away from is how it was told to me.

I'll agree with you that the TV industry is going to change, but it's not going to improve the Pac 12 network. They still have the same fundamental problem, whether it's on cable or streaming: lack of interest. The Pac 12 won't get better.
Again, agree in short term, but long term can adapt with 100% control.

The SEC & Big Ten will just come back to the pack.
Corporate Structure Partners do not adapt as fast to changes. Apple makes more than all silicon valley Big Firms combine, and those Firms and New Ones, are doing bad either. Disney-ESPN & FOX, GE-NBC won't be determining the change is how it was told to me? Movie Studios are shaking in their boots too, and not just because China is after them, but what China will do in the future with their own High Tech Base.

In a general sense that's true, but in the specific case of the Pac 12, it isn't. There simply isn't much interest in the Pac 12 network. That's why they aren't getting good distribution now. Even if they go to some different platform, like streaming, they still aren't going to make more money without more interest.

You miss my point about the SEC and Big Ten coming back to the pack. Here's what I mean. Right now the SECN makes ~$500 million a year. The Big Ten ~$350 million. The Pac 12 ~$72 million. That's a big dropoff. However, the SEC and Big Ten don't make more money because they are more popular. The make more money because of bundling, so they can piggyback off of more popular channels. If you take that away from them, then they will fall to ~$70 million just like the Pac 12.

The underlying problem is that none of these conference networks are popular enough to make big money as a stand-alone. Even if you put them on a streaming platform, they aren't popular enough to generate $400-500 million like they do now. That's why I say if/when the cable business model collapses, the SEC & Big Ten just won't make as much money as they do now, and will drop back more in line with the Pac 12's revenue.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

In a general sense that's true, but in the specific case of the Pac 12, it isn't. There simply isn't much interest in the Pac 12 network. That's why they aren't getting good distribution now. Even if they go to some different platform, like streaming, they still aren't going to make more money without more interest.

You miss my point about the SEC and Big Ten coming back to the pack. Here's what I mean. Right now the SECN makes ~$500 million a year. The Big Ten ~$350 million. The Pac 12 ~$72 million. That's a big dropoff. However, the SEC and Big Ten don't make more money because they are more popular. The make more money because of bundling, so they can piggyback off of more popular channels. If you take that away from them, then they will fall to ~$70 million just like the Pac 12.

The underlying problem is that none of these conference networks are popular enough to make big money as a stand-alone. Even if you put them on a streaming platform, they aren't popular enough to generate $400-500 million like they do now. That's why I say if/when the cable business model collapses, the SEC & Big Ten just won't make as much money as they do now, and will drop back more in line with the Pac 12's revenue.

I missed no point at all and the proof is in your own words when you said, "Here Is What I Mean", that means you had no point expressed earlier.

I agreed to disagree, and you should go and deal with the Authors of many Sports Business Articles, not me, your speculation should challenge them, you have the Links and there are more on Sports Business Journal, Forbes, Bloomberg, and other notable Sports Media, go read them and email them.

You also lack the knowledge of what is going on at the FCC and Silicon Valley and the PAC-12 is their Backyard with many Boosters.

This is the reason why many of the Articles originate from California and PAC-12 Engineers, Entrepreneurs, and Corporate Sponsors live and breath and bleed their own Alma Maters right there. The Articles are not just Information it a both a warning and call for making sure the PAC-12 won't remain behind.

 

[topdecktiger]

I missed no point at all and the proof is in your own words when you said, "Here Is What I Mean", that means you had no point expressed earlier.

I agreed to disagree, and you should go and deal with the Authors of many Sports Business Articles, not me, your speculation should challenge them, you have the Links and there are more on Sports Business Journal, Forbes, Bloomberg, and other notable Sports Media, go read them and email them.

You also lack the knowledge of what is going on at the FCC and Silicon Valley and the PAC-12 is their Backyard with many Boosters.

This is the reason why many of the Articles originate from California and PAC-12 Engineers, Entrepreneurs, and Corporate Sponsors live and breath and bleed their own Alma Maters right there. The Articles are not just Information it a both a warning and call for making sure the PAC-12 won't remain behind.

I don't lack knowledge. It doesn't matter what technology you use. The bottom line is the number of customers, and the amount they are willing to pay for a product. Nothing the FCC or Silicon Valley does will change that. There simply aren't enough customers for the Pac 12 to make big money. (Same for the SEC and Big Ten as well.) The articles you have posted here even state that the overall market for broadcasting rights is going to shrink when the bubble bursts.

 

[HailtoPitt]

I've been saying for years now that the ACC hurt itself by not being more aggressive with their network. I stand by that statement even though some on here will pretend otherwise. They missed out on a lot of free money that other conferences will receive.

The end result of the TV landscape change will be less money to franchises, players, coaches, etc which means that the average person who isn't a sports fanatic will be better off. This is a good thing.

 

[topdecktiger]

I've been saying for years now that the ACC hurt itself by not being more aggressive with their network. I stand by that statement even though some on here will pretend otherwise. They missed out on a lot of free money that other conferences will receive.

The end result of the TV landscape change will be less money to franchises, players, coaches, etc which means that the average person who isn't a sports fanatic will be better off. This is a good thing.

They've got the same setup as the SEC and Big Ten.

 

[chethejet]

The generational shift form those who attend and support said programs to those who simply don't have the same interest to spend dollars on cable, and stationary viewing, Mobile devices may be the future but the ability to stay tuned for three hours on a 4" by 6" screen is not happening. But I do agree casual viewing and interest will differ down the road. How that affects deals and marketing who knows. The Big Ten and the SEC/ACC are distinct in that the latter has population growth and talent to build on.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

This is all banter until Netflix begins Sportsflix

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

I don't lack knowledge. It doesn't matter what technology you use. The bottom line is the number of customers, and the amount they are willing to pay for a product. Nothing the FCC or Silicon Valley does will change that. There simply aren't enough customers for the Pac 12 to make big money. (Same for the SEC and Big Ten as well.) The articles you have posted here even state that the overall market for broadcasting rights is going to shrink when the bubble bursts.

Once again, I agree where and posted the Article for those to read. I agree PAC-12 is worried about being left behind that is what the Article is all about, so quit wetting your pants.

SEC is the leader and best managed Conference in all of CFB and created the BCS Bowl System, then CFB Playoffs, they are second to none.

If not for SEC Leadership CFB would be left in the 1960s. They as the Biggest Conference with the most Attendance, Ratings, Best Players and Leadership will adapt and prevail in adjusting to the changes coming

The Big Ten challenges ESPN with the Big ten Channel and SEC followed and quickly kept up in just 1 year.

The Big Ten is and always will be The Second Top Conference in Football!
The Big Ten is also Second to the ACC in Basketball!
These are two most Profitable Sports!

Both Conferences have taken leadership on Cable Subscribers Partners , SEC with ESPN Tier I & II, Big-10 with Fox. They will always have a lead but still have to work with their Partners. The ACC is in full Partnership with Tier I, II, and III with ESPN. PAC-12 has none! Big-12 has no Network except Texas. All 5 will affected by ESPN Decline as well as other networks losing money too.

PAC-12 like the ACC & Big-12 will play catch up, and CFB needs those Votes to change too. They don't have to pass up SEC or Big Ten just get closer and they will as Cable goes into decline, and new technologies replace them.

Big Ten always takes care of itself but they had to be brought in 1990s to kicking and screaming to join the BCS with the PAC-12 trying to save the Rose Bowl. They finally caved in and accepted the change.

Quit whining and accept changes are on the way and we agree on that anyway. I respect your views and speculation but you didn't add anything that is not in the Articles.

If you got problems with it take it up with Authors. Cut your whining and crying from what was said in the Articles I put up and you quoted. This is why I put them up and said nothing otherwise within them. Change your panties!

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

The generational shift form those who attend and support said programs to those who simply don't have the same interest to spend dollars on cable, and stationary viewing, Mobile devices may be the future but the ability to stay tuned for three hours on a 4" by 6" screen is not happening. But I do agree casual viewing and interest will differ down the road. How that affects deals and marketing who knows. The Big Ten and the SEC/ACC are distinct in that the latter has population growth and talent to build on.

Very much agree! Pac-12 is growing too. ACC #1 in BB, SEC #1 in FB, Big Ten #2 in both but Cable Decline is here and and has about 6 to 8 years, to figure out what they can do. After that, it is up in the Air and they will all figure it out.

 

[topdecktiger]

Once again, I agree where and posted the Article for those to read. I agree PAC-12 is worried about being left behind that is what the Article is all about, so quit wetting your pants.

SEC is the leader and best managed Conference in all of CFB and created the BCS Bowl System, then CFB Playoffs, they are second to none.

If not for SEC Leadership CFB would be left in the 1960s. They as the Biggest Conference with the most Attendance, Ratings, Best Players and Leadership will adapt and prevail in adjusting to the changes coming

The Big Ten challenges ESPN with the Big ten Channel and SEC followed and quickly kept up in just 1 year.

The Big Ten is and always will be The Second Top Conference in Football!
The Big Ten is also Second to the ACC in Basketball!
These are two most Profitable Sports!

Both Conferences have taken leadership on Cable Subscribers Partners , SEC with ESPN Tier I & II, Big-10 with Fox. They will always have a lead but still have to work with their Partners. The ACC is in full Partnership with Tier I, II, and III with ESPN. PAC-12 has none! Big-12 has no Network except Texas. All 5 will affected by ESPN Decline as well as other networks losing money too.

PAC-12 like the ACC & Big-12 will play catch up, and CFB needs those Votes to change too. They don't have to pass up SEC or Big Ten just get closer and they will as Cable goes into decline, and new technologies replace them.

Big Ten always takes care of itself but they had to be brought in 1990s to kicking and screaming to join the BCS with the PAC-12 trying to save the Rose Bowl. They finally caved in and accepted the change.

Quit whining and accept changes are on the way and we agree on that anyway. I respect your views and speculation but you didn't add anything that is not in the Articles.

If you got problems with it take it up with Authors. Cut your whining and crying from what was said in the Articles I put up and you quoted. This is why I put them up and said nothing otherwise within them. Change your panties!

Your personal attacks ( like "quit whining") are juvenile and unwarranted. That just shows you can't have a rational argument based on facts and ideas. I raised a legitimate point. I challenged the notion that the Pac 12 is better positioned than the SEC & Big Ten networks, on the grounds that a stand-alone network won't make as much money as a network bundled with other channels. It is clear, just from the data we have now, that when networks (like ESPN) lose cable subscribers, they aren't making up that revenue from alternative platforms. The same thing applies to conference networks as well. That's not me "whining." That's simply an objective evaluation of the data.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Your personal attacks ( like "quit whining") are juvenile and unwarranted. That just shows you can't have a rational argument based on facts and ideas. I raised a legitimate point. I challenged the notion that the Pac 12 is better positioned than the SEC & Big Ten networks, on the grounds that a stand-alone network won't make as much money as a network bundled with other channels. It is clear, just from the data we have now, that when networks (like ESPN) lose cable subscribers, they aren't making up that revenue from alternative platforms. The same thing applies to conference networks as well. That's not me "whining." That's simply an objective evaluation of the data.

It is not a personal attack it is fact, the article stand on its own, it does not need your endorsement and I have respected you by agreeing where I could and disagreeing and leaving the rest to speculation, and you keep coming back whining and time for you take a nap and accept it.

The Article outlined everything! You keep crying! Time to end your behavior and take it up with yourself.

 

[topdecktiger]

It is not a personal attack it is fact, the article stand on its own, it does not need your endorsement and I have respected you by agreeing where I could and disagreeing and leaving the rest to speculation, and you keep coming back whining and time for you take a nap and accept it.

The Article outlined everything! You keep crying! Time to end your behavior and take it up with yourself.

The articles you posted did not mention that the Pac 12 is better positioned because it is 100% owned by the conference. None of the articles you posted mentioned that. The articles you posted dealt with ESPN's financial troubles, and the problem with the cable industry in general. The one article about the Pac 12 only mentioned it owns 100% of its rights when next contract expires. It did not address how the Pac 12 would monetize those rights.

Again, I have raised a legitimate point, and you don't address it with data or analysis. You just say "quit crying," which is again a juvenile argument.

 

[ThePanthers]

Here is a long and semi-accurate attempt to update the state of the Pac 12 Networks.

Basic information:

- The schools are currently getting about $1.5M per year from it

- DirecTV still does not carry it and isn't likely to carry it soon

- Pac 12 fans still hate night football games

- ACC Network likely to pay far more from the start according to industry peoples

 

[ThePanthers]

Jon wilner also just wrote an article how the Pac 12 took a gamble going on its own in the hopes in the future that someone would by an equity share for a huge profits but the way the cable industry is going, that share may now be purchased for a loss if they go that route.

 

[ThePanthers]

ttp://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/07/college-hotline-the-pac-12s-expanding-revenue-deficit-relative-to-sec-big-ten/

 

[PHATWOOD]

Your personal attacks ( like "quit whining") are juvenile and unwarranted. That just shows you can't have a rational argument based on facts and ideas. I raised a legitimate point. I challenged the notion that the Pac 12 is better positioned than the SEC & Big Ten networks, on the grounds that a stand-alone network won't make as much money as a network bundled with other channels. It is clear, just from the data we have now, that when networks (like ESPN) lose cable subscribers, they aren't making up that revenue from alternative platforms. The same thing applies to conference networks as well. That's not me "whining." That's simply an objective evaluation of the data.

TopDeck. Word to the wise, you're dealing with the drunk uncle of PantherLair. You make many good points. He's just gonna roll you with purple and emojis and stuff.

 

[steel_curtain]

TopDeck. Word to the wise, you're dealing with the drunk uncle of PantherLair. You make many good points. He's just gonna roll you with purple and emojis and stuff.

-If captain is drunk, Woodpeck must be on full blown cloud 9. He actually compared Indiana to Georgia Tech. Tech had more wins against the SEC this year then Indiana had in the last 30 years combined. Indiana hasnt had a single 9 win season since 1967.

 

[4Mark_Marty]

This is all banter until Netflix begins Sportsflix

Sting

I want my
I want my
I want my Sportsflix!

 

[phxpanther]

ESPN will have to adapt, like all networks, but they will be fine. Anyone that thinks they are dying is an absolute moron

 

[Tony Zimmermans Dennys Adversary]

Is Sportflix going to be a real thing? That is a fantastic idea.

 

[CJsE]

New FCC Commissioner will advance other Technology competing with Cable too. Sports Ratings in 2016 too Nosedives and Headlines not just in this Article but Forbes, Fortunes, Bloomberg, this is just the beginning. But ESPN biggest content is Sports?

HAHAHAHAHAHA...sorry...HAHAHAHAHA

I had started to write why this is the most misinformed statement of the month, but then realized that an orange would understand the information about as much as the OP.

PItt and Penn State have not played since 2000, but in 2016 it was sold out, in 2017 I predict expect Standing Room Sell out of 110,000!

Really?? You predict a sellout at the stadium that averages more than 100,000 people per game and regularly sells out for any half-decent competitor??While you're on this amazing prophetic roll tell me next week's lotto numbers and who will win the 2025 Super Bowl.

 

[pbrad]

As soon as bundling is dismantled these figures for the different conferences will be drastically reduced, most people don't know they are paying for football conferences they don't even care about. As far as CJs comment on Ped attendance, They averaged 97k last year.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Is Sportflix going to be a real thing? That is a fantastic idea.

It will be once the conference networks cease being subsidized by Aunt Ethel and Grandma Agnus. The conferences are bringing in WAY TOO much money for their real value. Once a service like Netflix can compete (which might only be a couple years away) then it will be over for the days of ESPN dominance.

Can't wait.

 

[CJsE]

As far as CJs comment on Ped attendance, They averaged 97k last year.

100,257 according to CBS and ESPN.

 

[revampedpanthers]

OCTOBER 2016
In the past five years ESPN has lost 11,346,000 subscribers according to Nielsen data. If you combine that with ESPN2 and ESPNU subscriber losses this means that ESPN has lost over a billion dollars in cable and satellite revenue just in the past five years, an average of $200 million each year. That total of a billion dollars hits ESPN in the pocketbook not just on a yearly basis, but for every year going forward. It's gone forever. That's not just bad, this is downright cataclysmic. And it's getting worse. In the past year ESPN lost 4.159 million subscribers, that's another $350 million in lost revenue across the ESPN family of networks..........................So where are all these subscribers going? A good theory posited by SportsTVRatings is that the loss is happening three ways, 1. death, 2. cord nevers and 3. cord cutters. Let me unpack those three: first, older people are dying off and they're more likely to subscribe to cable than younger people, second, many younger people don't subscribe to cable at all, hence they're cord nevers and third, many of you are also cutting the cord to save money. Combine all three of these factors and all are working against the cable and satellite bundle.

So let's talk about the ESPN business model. I've written a ton about this, but on its most basic level every channel has a cost in your cable bill. You don't realize it because your cable bill isn't broken down by individual channel cost, but ESPN is by far the most expensive channel on all our cable bills. (ESPN is the most expensive channel costing $6.60 a month. The second most expensive? TNT, which costs just $1.65 a month). Every single cable and satellite subscriber pays around $80 a year for ESPN. With 88.7 million subscribers, that means ESPN pockets around $7 billion a year just in cable and satellite subscription fees. So what makes sports on cable TV a bubble? The fact that ESPN uses the money it receives from cable and satellite subscribers to buy sports rights. And the vast majority of those cable and satellite subscribers never watch ESPN. Your Aunt Gladys, who hasn't watched a sporting event in a decade, pays the same amount for ESPN as you do. What does ESPN do with that money from you and Aunt Gladys and its other 88 million subscribers? It buys sports rights. Presently ESPN is on the hook for the following yearly rights payments: $1.9 billion a year to the NFL for Monday Night Football, $1.47 billion to the NBA, $700 million to Major League Baseball, $608 million for the College Football Playoff, $225 million to the ACC, $190 million to the Big Ten, $120 million -- and potentially growing -- to the Big 12, $125 million a year to the PAC 12, and hundreds of millions more to the SEC. At an absolute minimum it would appear that ESPN presently pays out nearly $6 billion a year to sports leagues just in rights fees. At 73 million subscribers -- our projection for 2021 based on the past five years of subscriber losses -- ESPN would be bringing in just over $6 billion a year in yearly subscriber fees. Sure, advertising money and ESPN2 and ESPNU have to be factored in as well, but you'd also have to add in every other cost that ESPN has to run multiple networks, employee salaries, technology, everything that a major corporation with thousands of worldwide employees has to keep up. And, importantly, you also have to factor in this, ESPN's Monday Night Football contract expires at the end of 2021. Right when current projections would have them hitting just 73 million subscribers...............................

But how much is espn gaining from internet subscribers? many who cut the cord end up paying for some sort of sports package from espn or someone like sling. So while there overall numbers are indeed dropping they aren't dropping as fast as the article makes it out. Basically the current sports programming setup is going to remain the same until at least 2025. I do agree at some point those tv contracts espn is paying out will start declining because espn's revenue is going to continue to decline, as more and more people stop cable/satellite programing they won't have the cost for sports spread out to a population that doesn't care about it, of course when that happens expect to start paying a lot more for sports programming. Just point out that the decline isn't going to be quite as steep as the article proposes because its not factoring in the new online money espn is getting.

 

[revampedpanthers]

I've been saying for years now that the ACC hurt itself by not being more aggressive with their network. I stand by that statement even though some on here will pretend otherwise. They missed out on a lot of free money that other conferences will receive.

The end result of the TV landscape change will be less money to franchises, players, coaches, etc which means that the average person who isn't a sports fanatic will be better off. This is a good thing.

Maybe but you can pretty much guarantee that your sports fanatic is going to end up paying a lot more to watch games. If the ESPN cable model dies your going to end up paying espn to watch these games online, what that cost will be up to what people are willing to pay but I would bet its going to be more than the 6 dollars a month it cost currently with cable.

Also the person who doesn't watch sports maybe likes to watch HGTV. HGTV is subsidized by sports fanatics as well since they are paying say 1 dollar month for a channel they will never watch. Whats going to happen is some of these channels will die off. They won't make it, the ones that do will have to be able to charge more for their private channel. So instead of the current 1 dollar they will charge 5 dollars. What could end up happening is the industry will move away from the cable model and the consumer will end up paying similar money to what they do now but without as many channels. I think more likely you will end up bundling through someone like sling. Consumers will end up paying similar amounts to what they do currently its just the provider won't be cable/satellite it will be a online company(probably the same company just through a different access)