(03-29-2019 12:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 08:34 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 07:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 06:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Oh my god, Quo, NOBODY is watching anything on ESPN3. ESPN3 was an experiment, and a way for ESPN to entice leagues by allowing them to, nominally, have all the programming they could want on an "ESPN platform".

Stop thinking of "exposure" as "available to anyone who wants to find it". Think of exposure as "available where people are LIKELY to find it."

OMG JB, I have watched TONS of games on ESPN3 the last couple of years. Easy as pie.

And it was zero trouble to find them. The demise of "3" in favor of "plus" really does suck for the viewer, it means paying $5 special and extra for something that used to be bundled with your regular ISP/cable bill, and it will IMO hurt the AAC.

Dude stop with the ESPN+ is a hassle. It’s the same price as a hamburger. Did you not eat one hamburger last month? Forego one hamburger and a coke and get ESPN+. To me if you watch one game you’re getting your monies worth and has a greater value than eating one McDonald’s or Subway. I think I could find 5.00 in my couch cushions right now.

Dudes (you and others) stop with the ESPN+ is just a "couch cushions change $5 McDonalds Happy Meal a Month" or something. That is a *big* barrier to a lot of people. That's why it only has 2 million subscribers.

Lol. It is as a big barrier to a lot of people for Netflix...until it wasn’t.

Right now, it has 2 million subscribers. We shall see what happens.

(03-29-2019 12:24 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I get what you guys are saying with ESPN+...

I'm just say even giving the detractors the ESPN+ point, with the money being TRIPLE(and actually closer to 350%), even if the ESPN+ is slightly worse than ESPN3, it's still a great situation for the AAC. The TV coverage is far better than prior contract required.

Nobody is saying that overall, this deal isn't far better than the last one. Obviously, 7m is way better than 2m. We are arguing other aspects of it.

ESPN+ added over 2 million subs in it's first year.

(03-29-2019 01:14 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  ESPN+ added over 2 million subs in it's first year.

Launch April 12, 2018
Sept 20, 2018 - announces 1 million subscribers
Feb 5, 2019 - announces 2 million subscribers

So 5 months, 1 week for the first million
4 months, 2 weeks for the second million

By August 2019, should be over 6 million at that rate. 10 million by the close of 2020.

The content I get with ESPN+ is far greater than the amount I pay for ESPN+

I wouldn't be surprised, nor would I cancel my subscription, if it goes to $9.99 sometime by the first of 2020.

With the Creation of the Disney+ streaming services later this year, expect a Disney+/ESPN+/HULU bundle.

(03-29-2019 12:50 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 12:00 PM)e-parade Wrote:  All you guys arguing against the ease of ESPN+ clearly don't have any of the options like Amazon Firesticks or other brands that are equivalent. People are starting to flock to this instead of using cable packages because you can easily get apps like Netflix and Hulu on it to watch all of your favorite programming. You know what else you can get on there? ESPN+. It's extremely easy, and I have found myself just going to that app and seeing what games are available to watch at any given time, it's just like going to the Guide channel on your cable box and can be operated via a remote like anything else.

Seriously. Not hard in the slightest.

True, but (I presume) you're young enough not to be a Luddite. It's the senior citizens of the world who think a Roku is probably the name of an Avenger who don't know how to do these sorts of things. They're the ones likely to be alienated by a switch to streaming.

USFFan

Fair point - but putting it in an app is a way to expand it to the younger generations that are moving away from cable packages in waves.

Case in point: I don't get any sports channels. I only have cable at all (and it's the dumbest of small packages) because it's the only way I can get internet in my area. Upgrading to a full cable package with sports channels is far more expensive than $5 a month for ESPN+, which is something I barely notice.

(03-29-2019 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:43 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  the thing that's so funny about everything. With the numbers that were announced being on ESPN/2/U- there's not going to be this huge drop in TV games.

Even if ESPN+ is worse than ESPN3, which is definitely debatable, the AAC is going to be getting TRIPLE the money they were getting. I'd say that in a lot of ways more than makes up for it.

Not sure why ESPN+ would be any different than ESPN3. As far as I've seen they use the same WatchESPN app and the broadcast quality I imagine would be equivalent.

The difference is you have to pay $5 extra a month for +.

You must think that you get ESPN3 for free which is not the case. your cost to get ESPN3 is the amount you pay for your internet service which includes ESPN3.

(03-29-2019 03:16 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:43 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  the thing that's so funny about everything. With the numbers that were announced being on ESPN/2/U- there's not going to be this huge drop in TV games.

Even if ESPN+ is worse than ESPN3, which is definitely debatable, the AAC is going to be getting TRIPLE the money they were getting. I'd say that in a lot of ways more than makes up for it.

Not sure why ESPN+ would be any different than ESPN3. As far as I've seen they use the same WatchESPN app and the broadcast quality I imagine would be equivalent.

The difference is you have to pay $5 extra a month for +.

You must think that you get ESPN3 for free which is not the case. your cost to get ESPN3 is the amount you pay for your internet service which includes ESPN3.

No, I must not think that. I am well-aware that ESPN3 is not free and the cost is bundled in to the internet service by my provider. That's why I used the word "extra" when describing ESPN+, because you can pay your internet (and cable bill) and you still won't get it.

You have to pay $5 extra for it, as i said.

(03-29-2019 02:39 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  With the Creation of the Disney+ streaming services later this year, expect a Disney+/ESPN+/HULU bundle.

Thats when I think you'll really see things take off.

(03-28-2019 11:01 AM)B easy Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 09:13 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 08:56 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:56 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  So from what I can tell, this is really a 6 year deal that gets re-evaluated exactly when the B12 would use the AAC to backfill.....they added the extra 6 so they could yell about it being a Billion dollar deal when in reality if half the AAC goes to the b12 like they want, the last 6 years of this deal will be conference USA money.

It’s honestly a great deal for those AAC teams expecting Big 12 exodus and spots to open up in 2024/25 imo. They either get paid for 6 years with max exposure then move up to a semi P5 new Big 12 or no one leaves the AAC and their worst case is a tweener AAC conference.

"lookins" have never amounted to much of anything

Neal Pilson former head of CBS sports has talked about them before

they do not come close to meaning a major renegotiation of a contract nor do they mean any huge new money

and it sounds as though if teams leave it does not mean a lot less money for the remaining teams it means ESPN just does not pay for those teams

and the Big 12 deals end in 2024-25

it is 2018-19 now so 6 years from when the AAC deals kick in would actually be after the Big 12 deals have been renegotiated

That’s the point of the ‘look in’ ESPN would want to see what the AAC looks like AFTER the Big 12 locks itself in because they may add AAC teams.

And obviously a ‘look in’ wouldn’t amount to more money LMAO! It’s there in the event the teams the AAC is left with are the SMU, ECU, Tulane, Tulsa crew. ESPN ain’t paying 10 mil a year for 6 more years of that.

At least this deal gives ECU a chance to turn around the narrative. If I was advocating for ECU I would stress the following:

(1) ECU was always an upper tier team in the sport that really matters in C-USA and even the 1st year of the AAC.

(2) 2014, ECU was the 1st and only non-A5 to ever crack the initial CFP rankings.

(3) ECU is the only non-A5 to beat 3 consecutive top 25 teams.

(4) Even in 2016, ECU became the 1st and only non-A5 to beat one single A-5 conference 6 consecutive times (ACC).

So it's not like ECU's history is ancient, just need to get back on track this year which I believe we will.

(5) ECU has the best fan base in the AAC.

(6) ECU opens up a newly renovated DFS this fall.

(7) ECU can now spend more money on upgrades and facilities.

(8) ECU has moved up in the top 200 of tier 1 Nat'l Universities recently in the USNWR (at least we're ahead of WVU).

(9) Most importantly, ECU has a new coach that's changing the culture and hopefully that will bring immediate results on the field and start changing the perception that has been hindered by the last 3 years of ineptitude.

While ECU certainly has other obstacles to overcome, winning big in football would change a lot of attitudes and thereby best position the Pirates for whatever the future may bring. The one thing that's saved us over the years is our fanbase. A culture here that just refuses to allow the program to slip into obscurity. It's the reason ECU's in the AAC. Having the nicest stadium and best fan base in the conference will matter a lot more if/when we win big but that needs to start this fall to change the trajectory of the program for this crucial 6 year period upcoming.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ECUPiratesFB/...3548055552

ECU football is set to bounce back, the upgraded stadium will look good on tv and order will be restored. Give Dooley time to bring in players and basketball will be respectable. At least ECU baseball is excelling and is currently in the top 15 nationally. It's an underrated/undervalued commodity but will get a lot more exposure with this new deal. The SEC cares about baseball and to a lesser degree so does the ACC & Big 12. ECU has a big road trip to #1 UCLA here in a few weeks.

(03-29-2019 01:46 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:14 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  ESPN+ added over 2 million subs in it's first year.

Launch April 12, 2018
Sept 20, 2018 - announces 1 million subscribers
Feb 5, 2019 - announces 2 million subscribers

So 5 months, 1 week for the first million
4 months, 2 weeks for the second million

By August 2019, should be over 6 million at that rate. 10 million by the close of 2020.

DAZN has said its goal is to hit 5 million subscribers as a target.

I don't think you can view ESPN+ growth as an exponential doubling like you suggest only that 1 million more subscribers have joined the bandwagon.

(03-29-2019 10:47 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Here's the big picture:

In 2012, Houston played football in Robertson Stadium and basketball in Hofheinz Pavilion. We had two so-called "national" TV games in football on CBSSN. Most of the other games on regional TV, either Fox Sports Southwest or CSS (Charter Sports).

Now we play in TDECU stadium and the Fertitta Center. We've spent $50M on practice facilities for football and basketball. And last year we had three football games on ABC, two on ESPN and one on ESPNU. The rest on CBSSN or ESPN3.

Before 2013, we were invisible to a lot of people in the nation. The exposure in the American has been great for our brand. And the linear minimums are going up in the next deal.

That, combined with the administation and booster commitment to facilites and coaches, has elevated UH to the point where it now competes for Peach Bowls, Elite 8s and hires head football coaches from West Virginia.

It's night and day. UH is a better athletics program with better exposure than more than several in the P5.

This is fantastic.

(03-30-2019 09:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:46 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:14 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  ESPN+ added over 2 million subs in it's first year.

Launch April 12, 2018
Sept 20, 2018 - announces 1 million subscribers
Feb 5, 2019 - announces 2 million subscribers

So 5 months, 1 week for the first million
4 months, 2 weeks for the second million

By August 2019, should be over 6 million at that rate. 10 million by the close of 2020.

DAZN has said its goal is to hit 5 million subscribers as a target.

I don't think you can view ESPN+ growth as an exponential doubling like you suggest only that 1 million more subscribers have joined the bandwagon.

I don't think there are any good models for what ESPN+'s growth is going to look like. It will grow, either quickly or slowly, to a market saturation point and stop. But where is that point? Growth linear or exponential? Or maybe in "jumps" as new content types come onto ESPN+? Kind of a crapshoot

(03-30-2019 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 09:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:46 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:14 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  ESPN+ added over 2 million subs in it's first year.

Launch April 12, 2018
Sept 20, 2018 - announces 1 million subscribers
Feb 5, 2019 - announces 2 million subscribers

So 5 months, 1 week for the first million
4 months, 2 weeks for the second million

By August 2019, should be over 6 million at that rate. 10 million by the close of 2020.

DAZN has said its goal is to hit 5 million subscribers as a target.

I don't think you can view ESPN+ growth as an exponential doubling like you suggest only that 1 million more subscribers have joined the bandwagon.

I don't think there are any good models for what ESPN+'s growth is going to look like. It will grow, either quickly or slowly, to a market saturation point and stop. But where is that point? Growth linear or exponential? Or maybe in "jumps" as new content types come onto ESPN+? Kind of a crapshoot

HBO Go is at 5 million subscribers and it launched in 2015. There are cord cutters who use it as their exclusive entertainment service.

There is next to nobody who uses ESPN+ as its primary entertainment service. Also few casual fans already with a cable/OTT sports package that feel the need for ESPN+. There is a reason why its only 5 dollars.

ESPN+ at its current content tier has a limited upside. Its mostly international soccer, Olympic sports and mid major competition. I am actually watching it right now for free as part of my IPTV package.

(03-30-2019 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 09:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:46 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:14 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  ESPN+ added over 2 million subs in it's first year.

Launch April 12, 2018
Sept 20, 2018 - announces 1 million subscribers
Feb 5, 2019 - announces 2 million subscribers

So 5 months, 1 week for the first million
4 months, 2 weeks for the second million

By August 2019, should be over 6 million at that rate. 10 million by the close of 2020.

DAZN has said its goal is to hit 5 million subscribers as a target.

I don't think you can view ESPN+ growth as an exponential doubling like you suggest only that 1 million more subscribers have joined the bandwagon.

I don't think there are any good models for what ESPN+'s growth is going to look like. It will grow, either quickly or slowly, to a market saturation point and stop. But where is that point? Growth linear or exponential? Or maybe in "jumps" as new content types come onto ESPN+? Kind of a crapshoot

I expect ESPN+ to grow in jumps, both seasonal and based on new content. E.g., as football season starts, there will be a jump as fans of conferences with games on plus sign up. Or if they add new popular content like MMA, that will cause a jump.

I also could see seasonal dumps too, e.g. people who get it in September for football then dump it in december when the season ends

But as you say there is no way to really know, we will have to see.

CBS All Access plus Showtime is at 8 million subscribers.

https://thestreamable.com/news/cbs-reach...d-showtime

They have set a goal of 22 million subscribers by 2022. But a lot of the subscribers they have now are part of Amazon Prime subscriptions.

This is for full content of the CBS brand. ESPN+ is third tier content.

DAZN has more potential because they charge more (19.99), cannot be picked up at all through 3rd party carriage (I have ESPN+ for free) and have a first tier boxing platform to go up against ESPN, Fox and Showtime with two of the biggest stars signed.

ESPN+ at the moment on the college sports level is just an alternative to sublicensing out third tier games.

(03-30-2019 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 09:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:46 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:14 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  ESPN+ added over 2 million subs in it's first year.

Launch April 12, 2018
Sept 20, 2018 - announces 1 million subscribers
Feb 5, 2019 - announces 2 million subscribers

So 5 months, 1 week for the first million
4 months, 2 weeks for the second million

By August 2019, should be over 6 million at that rate. 10 million by the close of 2020.

DAZN has said its goal is to hit 5 million subscribers as a target.

I don't think you can view ESPN+ growth as an exponential doubling like you suggest only that 1 million more subscribers have joined the bandwagon.

I don't think there are any good models for what ESPN+'s growth is going to look like. It will grow, either quickly or slowly, to a market saturation point and stop. But where is that point? Growth linear or exponential? Or maybe in "jumps" as new content types come onto ESPN+? Kind of a crapshoot

I expect ESPN+ to grow in jumps, both seasonal and based on new content. E.g., as football season starts, there will be a jump as fans of conferences with games on plus sign up. Or if they add new popular content like MMA, that will cause a jump.

MMA isn't going to give a significant bump.

What would bump is if it was 11.99 but included the entire ESPN offerings from ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. That is the kind of product people want, not 5 or 6 dollars a month for third tier content.

(03-30-2019 03:15 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 09:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:46 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Launch April 12, 2018
Sept 20, 2018 - announces 1 million subscribers
Feb 5, 2019 - announces 2 million subscribers

So 5 months, 1 week for the first million
4 months, 2 weeks for the second million

By August 2019, should be over 6 million at that rate. 10 million by the close of 2020.

DAZN has said its goal is to hit 5 million subscribers as a target.

I don't think you can view ESPN+ growth as an exponential doubling like you suggest only that 1 million more subscribers have joined the bandwagon.

I don't think there are any good models for what ESPN+'s growth is going to look like. It will grow, either quickly or slowly, to a market saturation point and stop. But where is that point? Growth linear or exponential? Or maybe in "jumps" as new content types come onto ESPN+? Kind of a crapshoot

I expect ESPN+ to grow in jumps, both seasonal and based on new content. E.g., as football season starts, there will be a jump as fans of conferences with games on plus sign up. Or if they add new popular content like MMA, that will cause a jump.

MMA isn't going to give a significant bump.

What would bump is if it was 11.99 but included the entire ESPN offerings from ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. That is the kind of product people want, not 5 or 6 dollars a month for third tier content.

Thing is, for all the talk about the death of cable and the rise of streaming, there are still far.more cable viewers than streamers.

ESPN currrently gets around $10 per cable customer for its top 4 tier of ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and the.SECN. That's $10 whether you watch or not. They collect that from about 80 million homes, and the reason they do is the cable companies provide that reach. It's mutually beneficial - cable TV wants the ESPN bundle to attract people to sign up for cable, and ESPN wants to be on cable for its pipeline in to all those homes and TVs, so offers the bundle at a low price. Cable customers get a group discount.

But ESPN has zero incentive to offer an a la carte streamer those 4 networks for the $12 price you want. That's because you are so small compared to the traditional cable market.

And the reason for that is family: yes, if i was single i would probably ditch cable and just get the OTA channels, the news channels, and the sports channels. I would thus lower my $130 cable bill and get my TV bill down to about $50 via Youtube TV. But i am not that guy. My wife wants a bunch movie and female channels, she loves silly reality shows on stuff like Bravo and TLC and other channels i didn't know existed until she moved in. And my kid wants a bunch of kid and teenager channels. If i tried to buy all that disparate content via a la carte streaming, it would be more than my cable bill. For the lone cheetos munching and video watching sports junkie, cord cutting is better. But for 90% of families cable really does offer more efficiencies because of the group discounts. Importantly, targeted streaming does NOT save you money by offering you the same array of channels as cable for a lower price. It saves you money by allowing you to cut a large number of channels you get on cable but don't watch and just pay for the channels you actually watch. But you pay more on a per-channel basis with streaming than with cable, so if you have a family that wants to watch all those cable channels, targeted streaming is more costly. And IMO, most families are like that and likely will be.

Back to your original ESPN request: I think we know the real streaming profit price point for the ESPN bundle you want - it's the approximately $25 ESPN gets from the Youtube channel to have them on.

IMO, AAC fans who think PLUS will become a big mass market thing, such that tens of millions will have it and the AAC games on plus will get lots of casual eyeballs, are in for a surprise. As you said earlier, the whole strategic point of PLUS is to use third tier content to recapture some money from the small tribe of cord cutters. But we shall see.

Its like the baker who sweeps up all the leftover dough and tailings left on the table from making a batch of pies and throws it all together to make one more pie.

(03-29-2019 01:46 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 01:14 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  ESPN+ added over 2 million subs in it's first year.

Launch April 12, 2018
Sept 20, 2018 - announces 1 million subscribers
Feb 5, 2019 - announces 2 million subscribers

So 5 months, 1 week for the first million
4 months, 2 weeks for the second million

By August 2019, should be over 6 million at that rate. 10 million by the close of 2020.

Thing is, that rate might not continue. It might start to decline. We just have to wait and see.