(05-25-2017 10:24 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  In the words of Mark Twain "I think cable's death has been greatly exaggerated".

I suspect so too. But we shall see.

(05-25-2017 10:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:24 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  In the words of Mark Twain "I think cable's death has been greatly exaggerated".

I suspect so too. But we shall see.

I agree and bet people said the same about OTA radio stations. I have Sirius radio but also find tons of OTA radio stations where ever I go. I suspect cable, OTA TV, Satellite, and streaming will all be around and competing for decades.

CBS Sports do not want to spend the money like a drunken sailor like the other big cable sports networks. In the future? We might not see ESPN, Fox Sports the Big 10 Network and other conference Networks on the basic or on all cable lineups. CBS Sports might be the only sports channel alongside NBC Sports could survive. CBS Sports and TNT, TBS and Tru-TV could join forces to start showing college football on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. We could see teams from the G5 like the MAC up against schools like Michigan on Saturday for cable viewerships. I do think Big Sky, Southland, Southern, SWAC, MEAC, CAA and MVFC could be shown on these channels as well. Grambling Vs Southern on Thanksgiving got a large viewership on NBC before it was shipped to NBC Sports. If the FCS conferences that I mentioned get close or the same amount for tv contracts with the G5? We might see some of those teams in Bowl games in the future. Some of the FCS schools do get eyeballs like any team at The FBS level for bowl games when they are the only game on tv. North Dakota State Vs Montana was in the millions.

(05-25-2017 08:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Only thing cord cutting will do in my opinion is move us from passive subscribers (ie. the aggregator whether it is Comcast, Direct, or Sling) pays the subscription fees to the aggregator's selection of networks out of a single fee to the customer, while the new model will likely involve the customer more often paying the fee directly to the network.

A network holding Nebraska football content I suspect is going to be just fine. I don't know that Rutgers and Maryland fan bases will have as many people motivated to pay up.

Providers like Sling and PS Vue have already negotiated contracts with the networks. HULU and UTube have started live streaming services. I get the BTN and the SECN through my PS Vuesubscription. The only thing that will change here is the method of signal delivery. I get 90 "quality"channels with all my sports, including all the ESPN channels, FS1/2, and even the NFL Network. This package costs me $34.99 monthly. No taxes, no cable boxes, dishes, or service repairmen. If you look hard enough, many, like XTV, are free. I doubt network/conference contracts suffer. Just providers who continue to use boxes and wires. DISH has Sling and DTV has DTV Now as streaming services. They see the cliff ahead.

(05-25-2017 11:53 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 08:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Only thing cord cutting will do in my opinion is move us from passive subscribers (ie. the aggregator whether it is Comcast, Direct, or Sling) pays the subscription fees to the aggregator's selection of networks out of a single fee to the customer, while the new model will likely involve the customer more often paying the fee directly to the network.

A network holding Nebraska football content I suspect is going to be just fine. I don't know that Rutgers and Maryland fan bases will have as many people motivated to pay up.

Providers like Sling and PS Vue have already negotiated contracts with the networks. HULU and UTube have started live streaming services. I get the BTN and the SECN through my PS Vuesubscription. The only thing that will change here is the method of signal delivery. I get 90 "quality"channels with all my sports, including all the ESPN channels, FS1/2, and even the NFL Network. This package costs me $34.99 monthly. No taxes, no cable boxes, dishes, or service repairmen. If you look hard enough, many, like XTV, are free. I doubt network/conference contracts suffer. Just providers who continue to use boxes and wires. DISH has Sling and DTV has DTV Now as streaming services. They see the cliff ahead.

The only true difference between traditional cable and satellite vs. Vue, Sling, DirectNow, etc., is who pays to get the signal into the house and who sells/leases the equipment to make that signal useful to a television.

It is a logical transition. In 1987 you had no use for the wire running into your home for any purpose other than the cable service. In 2017 most consumers are going to pay for the infrastructure needed to deliver the signal to their home because they want internet access regardless of their TV viewing habits.

I wonder if the cutting trend would be so pronounced if cable companies had made internet service an added amenity to subscribing instead of an additional revenue stream.

(05-25-2017 08:55 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 06:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 05:04 AM)krup Wrote:  People need to reserve their judgement on Rutgers until they get some time where they are making the same money as the rest of the schools they are trying to compete with (they aren't close right now).

There is so much talent in the NY/NJ area for not only football/basketball, but other sports like wresting and lacrosse, that there is nothing structural keeping Rutgers from being a strong athletics program. Let's see what happens when they can spend B1G money (not old Big East contract money) on their operations and facilities.

No offense, but, Rutgers wasn't exactly making chump change in the Big East. They were already a major.

I don't think it's something to scoff at, that the Big East was small time. Other programs could print money there. Why couldn't Rutgers? What really changes now that the Big Ten has them? If they couldn't spend or keep up in the Big East, no amount of subsidy from the Big Ten is going to allow them to keep up on operations.

I'm glad Rutgers is part of the Big Ten. I like where they are. But I don't buy the "wait and see." They were terrible stewards with their resources. That doesn't just change now with new running buddies. This is going to be a decades-long transition, and that's assuming the school fully commits to the tasks. Do you really think the school is in this for athletics over the long haul?

At best, I suspect Rutgers and Maryland will look at how frugal Purdue runs their athletic department, and try to model it off that. And that program frustrates more than a few.

It is hard to explain to someone not involved in following the details of the program how crazily the RU athletics department was run under previous regimes. We had to sit through constant articles about the huge "subsidy" athletics was costing the school, then find out things like the Athletics Dept was incurring all of the costs of hosting a football game, but the Dining Services Dept was allowed to run the concession stands and get all of the profits from that.

All I can say is that there is a lot of evidence that things are different under the current leadership and they understand the value a successful athletics department can bring.

Believe me, I've been following what's been going on over there for some time. I don't envy their past. I don't envy the pressure cooker of NJ state affairs. Ethics compliance at these institutions. The Star Ledger and their witch hunts. It's nuts. There's nothing like it.

I understand the optimism, but, I just don't share it.

And there are factors both Rutgers and UMD have that no other Big Ten school face: operations in some of the highest SoL in the country. It just costs more money to do things in this region. Running on the cheap is probably what both programs are going to have to do; what's "cheap," though, is relative given the zipcodes. And, not to steer this into politics, but it can't be dismissed how liberal/leftist both NJ and MD are. The love for athletics and the support? It will never come from within the schools' faculty and staff communities. It HAS to be the students, alumni, and fans. It's of a different pedigree...even for Maryland, despite their past affiliations and successes.

(05-25-2017 12:30 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 08:55 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 06:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 05:04 AM)krup Wrote:  People need to reserve their judgement on Rutgers until they get some time where they are making the same money as the rest of the schools they are trying to compete with (they aren't close right now).

There is so much talent in the NY/NJ area for not only football/basketball, but other sports like wresting and lacrosse, that there is nothing structural keeping Rutgers from being a strong athletics program. Let's see what happens when they can spend B1G money (not old Big East contract money) on their operations and facilities.

No offense, but, Rutgers wasn't exactly making chump change in the Big East. They were already a major.

I don't think it's something to scoff at, that the Big East was small time. Other programs could print money there. Why couldn't Rutgers? What really changes now that the Big Ten has them? If they couldn't spend or keep up in the Big East, no amount of subsidy from the Big Ten is going to allow them to keep up on operations.

I'm glad Rutgers is part of the Big Ten. I like where they are. But I don't buy the "wait and see." They were terrible stewards with their resources. That doesn't just change now with new running buddies. This is going to be a decades-long transition, and that's assuming the school fully commits to the tasks. Do you really think the school is in this for athletics over the long haul?

At best, I suspect Rutgers and Maryland will look at how frugal Purdue runs their athletic department, and try to model it off that. And that program frustrates more than a few.

It is hard to explain to someone not involved in following the details of the program how crazily the RU athletics department was run under previous regimes. We had to sit through constant articles about the huge "subsidy" athletics was costing the school, then find out things like the Athletics Dept was incurring all of the costs of hosting a football game, but the Dining Services Dept was allowed to run the concession stands and get all of the profits from that.

All I can say is that there is a lot of evidence that things are different under the current leadership and they understand the value a successful athletics department can bring.

Believe me, I've been following what's been going on over there for some time. I don't envy their past. I don't envy the pressure cooker of NJ state affairs. Ethics compliance at these institutions. The Star Ledger and their witch hunts. It's nuts. There's nothing like it.

I understand the optimism, but, I just don't share it.

And there are factors both Rutgers and UMD have that no other Big Ten school face: operations in some of the highest SoL in the country. It just costs more money to do things in this region. Running on the cheap is probably what both programs are going to have to do; what's "cheap," though, is relative given the zipcodes. And, not to steer this into politics, but it can't be dismissed how liberal/leftist both NJ and MD are. The love for athletics and the support? It will never come from within the schools' faculty and staff communities. It HAS to be the students, alumni, and fans. It's of a different pedigree...even for Maryland, despite their past affiliations and successes.

Many of the people living in and around College Park may well be college football fans, but fans of a team from where they moved from.

(05-25-2017 01:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Many of the people living in and around College Park may well be college football fans, but fans of a team from where they moved from.

Yeah, and to that, I'm reminded of the year where Indiana hosted Penn State in Landover while a ranked Florida State team came into Byrd. PSU-IU outdrew UMD-FSU. Neither game sold out, though. There's definitely Big Ten school alumni and fans in around the Beltway and the I-95 corridor/NYC metro area, and they will travel. Problem is, you can't always expect those folks to be there. And, really, BOTH fan-bases need to represent themselves and show up.

It does say a lot about the Big Ten school fans versus the ACC ones. What does it say when two schools can travel better than the local major who's hosting their season's biggest game? How bad did it get there for a bit with the ACC? I mean, it has to be good now with some of its performers (like Clemson)...others just don't budge. And it can't be that way in either conference.

The Big Ten would have added Maryland whether it had a cable network or not. Maryland as an *institution* is 100% aligned with what the Big Ten is looking for in any school. I don't think people quite understand how difficult it was thought to be for the Big Ten to ever poach an original ACC school - THAT was a paradigm shifter. (Heck, I, the supposed Big Ten homer, initially didn't think it could be done several years ago even though I knew the league would have wanted Maryland if it could get them.)

Now, adding Rutgers was definitely focused on cable TV households. That being said, even if the cable bundle were to crumble, people need to look at Rutgers and a direct presence in the NYC market for the Big Ten as similar to why every pro sports league wants a team in, say, the Miami market despite terrible fairweather fans. It's not about Miami itself, but rather the fact that stronger franchises from New York, Chicago and Boston get exposure in Miami with its transplants from those Northern cities and the greater Latin American market beyond that. (Look at how MLS is *still* bending over backwards for a Miami franchise proposal that hasn't advanced in years, yet isn't looking a more viable options in places like St. Louis and San Antonio. Miami as a market is special in the way those other markets aren't special.) This is the same with Rutgers: at a minimum, schools like Penn State and Michigan with huge NYC area alumni bases get regular games there and it opens up the Big Ten brand further in the entire Northeast.

This is about the long game and the demographics of where Rutgers and Maryland are located are simply the best out of any area within the Big Ten footprint. That alone is a huge consideration beyond a cable network.

(05-25-2017 02:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big Ten would have added Maryland whether it had a cable network or not. Maryland as an *institution* is 100% aligned with what the Big Ten is looking for in any school. I don't think people quite understand how difficult it was thought to be for the Big Ten to ever poach an original ACC school - THAT was a paradigm shifter. (Heck, I, the supposed Big Ten homer, initially didn't think it could be done several years ago even though I knew the league would have wanted Maryland if it could get them.)

Now, adding Rutgers was definitely focused on cable TV households. That being said, even if the cable bundle were to crumble, people need to look at Rutgers and a direct presence in the NYC market for the Big Ten as similar to why every pro sports league wants a team in, say, the Miami market despite terrible fairweather fans. It's not about Miami itself, but rather the fact that stronger franchises from New York, Chicago and Boston get exposure in Miami with its transplants from those Northern cities and the greater Latin American market beyond that. (Look at how MLS is *still* bending over backwards for a Miami franchise proposal that hasn't advanced in years, yet isn't looking a more viable options in places like St. Louis and San Antonio. Miami as a market is special in the way those other markets aren't special.) This is the same with Rutgers: at a minimum, schools like Penn State and Michigan with huge NYC area alumni bases get regular games there and it opens up the Big Ten brand further in the entire Northeast.

This is about the long game and the demographics of where Rutgers and Maryland are located are simply the best out of any area within the Big Ten footprint. That alone is a huge consideration beyond a cable network.

Curious, you don't think Rutgers is an institutional fit? I would have thought that any discussion would have stopped at that point. Markets and Big 10 NYC/NJ alumni would have been secondary. Case in point, if Temple, Louisville or WVU was located in New Brunswick/Piscataway, would they have been invited?

I think that the difference is, right now under the "cable box bundling" system, the TV consumers (sports fans and non-sports fans alike) do not have a choice, the BTN is imposed upon them. (everyone in the "conference footprint" is charged .90 and everyone outside is charged .10, whether they will watch or even if they don't want the BTN).

Under whatever new model, whether "skinny bundle" or streaming, non-sports fans are not going to subscribe. Non-Big Ten fans are not going to subscribe.

At that point (for all conferences), it will no longer be "cable boxes" that matter. It will be the number of actual fans who will pony up their cash.

Numbers of dedicated fans for each school will be all that matters, not cable boxes or number of households or any such metric as currently utilized.

The fan bases of the big, popular schools are going to matter, not the total population of a given state or region.

I wonder if some of these networks don't toss it back into the cost of the local broadcast stations in some way, with the feeds breaking down regionally more so than they currently stand, with cfb/conferences finding new ways to schedule favorably therein.

It's not great for ESPN, but, they aren't dead. Stuff is just transferred to ABC regional markets.

Sound out there? Try more like...what's new is old. As in, we go back to the old models; before the mid-90's and rise of cable/ESPN. Rebuild from there, or, lather, rinse, repeat.

Local markets here in Arkansas show the Hogs, UCA, Arkansas State, and with Arkansas Tech's own tv station had Wonder Boys games and some Russellville High School football games.

I'm not buying the idea that Rutgers will "come back" under a new administration. That would imply they were ever good for more than a very short while in both football and basketball. They have been arguably one of the worst D-I athletic programs of the last fifty years.

That being said, the B1G can, and maybe already has, reap some benefit from their addition of Maryland and Rutgers. Since the advent of the CFP, there have been 21 playoff or access bowl games, and the B1G has appeared in 10 of them, more than any other conference, including the vaunted SEC. They also have the most different teams (6) to appear in a playoff or access bowl.

Some teams help their conference by being consistent winners, others by being consistent losers. The bottom half of the B1G may be as bad as any of the P5 conferences, but that helps their top half a lot. And that's where the money is.

(05-25-2017 03:41 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I wonder if some of these networks don't toss it back into the cost of the local broadcast stations in some way, with the feeds breaking down regionally more so than they currently stand, with cfb/conferences finding new ways to schedule favorably therein.

It's not great for ESPN, but, they aren't dead. Stuff is just transferred to ABC regional markets.

Sound out there? Try more like...what's new is old. As in, we go back to the old models; before the mid-90's and rise of cable/ESPN. Rebuild from there, or, lather, rinse, repeat.

The subscriber fees being generated from sports are so high in comparison to everything else (ESPN is the highest in the industry in approaching $8 per subscriber per month, while the next highest networks don't even reach $2) that it's going to be a LOOOOOONG time before that happens (if ever). You're more likely to see the Google/Amazon/Netflix/Apple crowd get that content before we see it on broadcast networks again.

I still think a lot of people have a hard time putting how much ESPN and other sports networks have been generating into context (e.g. as much as or more than a Star Wars or Marvel movie domestic gross every single month before a single ad is even sold), which is why they're fighting tooth and nail against any a la carte offering or allowing sister networks to go into non-sports skinny bundles. Even if cable subscriber levels are cut in half compared to what they are today, ESPN is still probably better off holding onto that model compared to going an a la carte route like HBO Now. It might be frustrating to us as fans, but ESPN isn't just some type of ancillary business for Disney. To the contrary, ESPN is the single most important factor to the bottom line (good or bad) for the entire Walt Disney Company no matter how well their movies or theme parks do. The money that ESPN has generated (and still generates) is so high that even keeping 50% of that gross revenue would continue to make that network the single most valuable entertainment asset in the world.

The article ignores the real reason Maryland/Rutgers were added: to keep Penn State in the fold.

The ACC had Maryland, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC. Eventually a Penn State president would have realized that it was a much better fit for them than a Midwestern conference.

(05-25-2017 03:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that the difference is, right now under the "cable box bundling" system, the TV consumers (sports fans and non-sports fans alike) do not have a choice, the BTN is imposed upon them. (everyone in the "conference footprint" is charged .90 and everyone outside is charged .10, whether they will watch or even if they don't want the BTN).

Under whatever new model, whether "skinny bundle" or streaming, non-sports fans are not going to subscribe. Non-Big Ten fans are not going to subscribe.

At that point (for all conferences), it will no longer be "cable boxes" that matter. It will be the number of actual fans who will pony up their cash.

Numbers of dedicated fans for each school will be all that matters, not cable boxes or number of households or any such metric as currently utilized.

The fan bases of the big, popular schools are going to matter, not the total population of a given state or region.

I do think that there will still be bundling in the future because the most important owners of sports rights (ESPN/Disney, Comcast/NBC and Fox) have multiple non-sports networks that still need to leverage their sister sports networks in order to maximize their own revenue.

I know that I've said this before, but people don't really want "a la carte". Netflix and Amazon Prime are just like cable: I'm paying for a gazillion shows that I don't want and/or will never watch in order to get the handful of shows that I care about. The only difference as of now is that Netflix and Amazon Prime can undercut cable companies on price where subscriber growth matters more actual profits (and in the case of Amazon, Prime streaming is really a cost center to entice subscribers to order more retail products off of the Amazon website). Eventually (as with all companies), showing profits will eventually be more important than showing growth... and then we'll see the price of access to content rise accordingly.

Regardless, people DON'T really want true a la carte. They still want an all-you-can-eat buffet of content, which is why Hulu attracts more subscribers than network-specific sites and apps. We're just in a arbitrage period where people can get much of that all-you-can-eat buffet of content for a lower price by streaming or some combo of Netflix/Amazon/Hulu (so it makes economic sense that people want lower prices), but I'm skeptical that this can remain long-term (as noted that these streaming companies eventually need to show that they're actually profitable).

The other long-term advantage for the B1G in adding Rutgers and Maryland is their long-term ambition of eventually acquiring Virginia, UNC, Duke and/or Georgia Tech. South is where the future is, but in order to get there, they needed to go east.

(05-25-2017 05:43 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The other long-term advantage for the B1G in adding Rutgers and Maryland is their long-term ambition of eventually acquiring Virginia, UNC, Duke and/or Georgia Tech. South is where the future is, but in order to get there, they needed to go east.

Money can repair a lot of things, but I have a tough time seeing peace and love between UMD and ACC target schools. And alumni and fans from both sides have EVERY right to not want to associate with the other again. Both sides were obnoxious, and doesn't just change.

(05-25-2017 05:43 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The other long-term advantage for the B1G in adding Rutgers and Maryland is their long-term ambition of eventually acquiring Virginia, UNC, Duke and/or Georgia Tech. South is where the future is, but in order to get there, they needed to go east.

Big 10 is not known for basketball. They would take Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Notre Dame to get the biggest band for the buck. Florida market if the big bang for the buck with the population wise of the state.