ESPN Bowl Game Count: 35 to OTA's 4! - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 23Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 81 Old 12-23-2014, 12:51 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maltby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 32
ESPN Bowl Game Count: 35 to OTA's 4!

The Emmert Sports Network caps another great year of inhibiting free viewing of NCAA college football by crushing OTA 35 bowl games to four. If you don't have cable/satellite here's what you get:

Las Vegas Bowl
Sun Bowl
Independence Bowl
Citrus Bowl

And three of these are on ABC, which is owned by ESPN!

The films of De Sica, of Welles, of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made little money and endure as spiritual delights.
--David Mamet
Maltby is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 81 Old 12-23-2014, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mhufnagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,046
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltby View Post
The Emmert Sports Network caps another great year of inhibiting free viewing of NCAA college football by crushing OTA 35 bowl games to four. If you don't have cable/satellite here's what you get:

Las Vegas Bowl
Sun Bowl
Independence Bowl
Citrus Bowl

And three of these are on ABC, which is owned by ESPN!
Blame the NCAA and the bowl committees for this. They're the ones that decided that the extra money from cable broadcasts is more important than people being able to watch ota.
mhufnagel is offline  
post #3 of 81 Old 12-23-2014, 02:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aliens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 480
Help may be on the way.

Snippet...

Since spring, DISH has been rumored to be working on an over-the-top online television streaming service that costs $20 to $30 per month. DISH's idea is to offer a smaller number of popular channels (you know, that ones people actually watch) that stream from the Internet to mobile and connected devices, without the need for a traditional pay-TV service.

According to Variety, DISH has already signed content deals with Disney (NYSE: DIS ) , A&E, and Scripps Networks (HGTV, Food Network). The deal with Disney is of particular interest because it includes not just popular networks such as ABC and the Disney Channel, but also ESPN and ESPN 2.

Live sports are a driving force behind America's rising cable bills, and ESPN leads the charge. Content makers receive monthly fees for each subscriber who signs up for cable or satellite TV. ESPN charges the most compared to any other channel: $6.04 per subscriber every month.

DISH hopes snag subscribers who don't have a pay-TV service, and to tap into the rising over-the-top, or OTT, TV trend.
Aliens is online now  
post #4 of 81 Old 12-23-2014, 02:35 PM
Senior Member
 
ADTech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St Louis
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
And three of these are on ABC, which is owned by ESPN!
Not exactly. Both ABC and ESPN are owned by the Disney corporation.

Tech support for Antennas Direct
ADTech is online now  
post #5 of 81 Old 12-23-2014, 03:28 PM
Senior Member
 
lokar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post
Help may be on the way.

Snippet...

Since spring, DISH has been rumored to be working on an over-the-top online television streaming service that costs $20 to $30 per month. DISH's idea is to offer a smaller number of popular channels (you know, that ones people actually watch) that stream from the Internet to mobile and connected devices, without the need for a traditional pay-TV service.

According to Variety, DISH has already signed content deals with Disney (NYSE: DIS ) , A&E, and Scripps Networks (HGTV, Food Network). The deal with Disney is of particular interest because it includes not just popular networks such as ABC and the Disney Channel, but also ESPN and ESPN 2.

Live sports are a driving force behind America's rising cable bills, and ESPN leads the charge. Content makers receive monthly fees for each subscriber who signs up for cable or satellite TV. ESPN charges the most compared to any other channel: $6.04 per subscriber every month.

DISH hopes snag subscribers who don't have a pay-TV service, and to tap into the rising over-the-top, or OTT, TV trend.
I don't know how Dish is going to keep channels like Disney on their service and keep prices low since ESPN is responsible for a large part of the ridiculous fee increases everyone pays. I would be curious to know if this is only live streaming of the channels or on demand viewing will be available as live streaming still kind of sucks IMO. Pre-rendered so to speak streaming like on demand viewing of movies/TV shows is OK.
lokar is online now  
post #6 of 81 Old 12-23-2014, 04:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhufnagel View Post
Blame the NCAA and the bowl committees for this. They're the ones that decided that the extra money from cable broadcasts is more important than people being able to watch ota.
I don't know about the bowl committees, but I am pretty sure that the courts have stripped the NCAA of having any power to make decisions regarding TV contracts.

I believe that power resides with the individual conferences. The conferences, of course, want to get as much money as possible, and they have convinced the public that TV revenues from college football and basketball help to keep tuition and fees down. In reality, the revenue just goes to inflate the salaries of coaches at the big programs and also to support a wide array of non-revenue sports that really should not be allowed to overshadow the academic mission of the schools.

The only way things will ever change is if the courts eventually rule that the athletes are performers who have to be paid for their work and who get to retain the rights to use their images or else be compensated for turning those rights over to others.
veedon is offline  
post #7 of 81 Old 12-23-2014, 08:32 PM
Senior Member
 
cgmv123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADTech View Post
Not exactly. Both ABC and ESPN are owned by the Disney corporation.
Disney only owns 80% of ESPN and owns Disney-ABC TV Group, which owns ABC if you want to get really technical.

Max Vrany
All opinions are my own unless otherwise specified.
I make no guarantees as to the accuracy of any information given.
GO Pack GO! On Wisconsin! Go Brewers!
cgmv123 is online now  
post #8 of 81 Old 12-23-2014, 08:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
I don't know about the bowl committees, but I am pretty sure that the courts have stripped the NCAA of having any power to make decisions regarding TV contracts.

I believe that power resides with the individual conferences. The conferences, of course, want to get as much money as possible, and they have convinced the public that TV revenues from college football and basketball help to keep tuition and fees down. In reality, the revenue just goes to inflate the salaries of coaches at the big programs and also to support a wide array of non-revenue sports that really should not be allowed to overshadow the academic mission of the schools.

The only way things will ever change is if the courts eventually rule that the athletes are performers who have to be paid for their work and who get to retain the rights to use their images or else be compensated for turning those rights over to others.
I realize I am an old white guy, but listening to these guys in power cry is painful. It would be great if the courts grant college players the right to fair medical treatment, which I believe is what the Northwestern player was trying to do.

Call AVS For the Best Deals!!!


My new favorite game is Stop the Bots
Ericglo is offline  
post #9 of 81 Old 12-24-2014, 06:27 AM
Thread Ender
 
WS65711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Covington, LA OTA & Charter CableCard
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
The only way things will ever change is if the courts eventually rule that the athletes are performers who have to be paid for their work and who get to retain the rights to use their images or else be compensated for turning those rights over to others.
I'm ok with paying the college players.. as long as they pay all of their own tuition and fees out of their "earnings". They shouldn't have it both ways, IMHO.

Don't ever make the MISTAKE of buying a Samsung TV..
They consider THIS
normal on a two month old set..

It's a shame that in the end TCU's playoff chances all came down to this . . .
WS65711 is offline  
post #10 of 81 Old 12-24-2014, 08:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by WS65711 View Post
I'm ok with paying the college players.. as long as they pay all of their own tuition and fees out of their "earnings". They shouldn't have it both ways, IMHO.
The universities should get out of the sports business. Just license the names and logos to private companies who can run the teams as minor league teams. Or let states or cities own and run the teams. There is no good reason to force an athlete to go to college just to get a chance to play in the pros. If the NFL and NBA had strong minor leagues like the NHL and MLB do, there would not be so much exploitation.
jjeff likes this.
veedon is offline  
post #11 of 81 Old 12-25-2014, 08:41 PM
Senior Member
 
osu1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Each Bowl makes their own tv agreements and ESPN also owns several of the bowls.
osu1991 is offline  
post #12 of 81 Old 12-26-2014, 09:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgmv123 View Post
Disney only owns 80% of ESPN and owns Disney-ABC TV Group, which owns ABC if you want to get really technical.
Correct.

Hearst owns the other 20%.
NetworkTV is online now  
post #13 of 81 Old 12-26-2014, 10:32 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,906
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 314
Some paraphrased quotes I see frequently:

"I don't watch anything on OTA. Too many commercials. I get all my shows commercial-free from Netflix!"
"I don't watch anything live on OTA. I use my DVR so I can skip commercials."
"Seriously, if it's not on BBCA, it's not worth watching. The networks and their commercials can shove it."
"WHY are there so few OTA bowl games?? WHY??"

Blame the conferences all you want, but if the American public wasn't shoveling all that cash into cable, ESPN wouldn't have the means to be the high bidder. Per-subscriber fees PLUS advertising dollars? That's hard to beat in the OTA world unless enough people cut the cord so that OTA numbers double. Yeah, not happening.

Title edited to clarify.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.

Last edited by DrDon; 12-26-2014 at 10:35 AM.
DrDon is online now  
post #14 of 81 Old 12-26-2014, 11:06 AM
Member
 
LCDSpazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
The universities should get out of the sports business. Just license the names and logos to private companies who can run the teams as minor league teams. Or let states or cities own and run the teams. There is no good reason to force an athlete to go to college just to get a chance to play in the pros. If the NFL and NBA had strong minor leagues like the NHL and MLB do, there would not be so much exploitation.
Genuine minor leagues would be much better. However, South Bend IN and Ann Arbor MI stadiums are not drawing 90-100k fans for "minor league football" - nor would millions more watch at home. The tradition/affiliation with the schools is why so many people care.
AntAltMike likes this.
LCDSpazz is offline  
post #15 of 81 Old 12-26-2014, 04:23 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maltby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Some paraphrased quotes I see frequently:

"I don't watch anything on OTA. Too many commercials. I get all my shows commercial-free from Netflix!"
In other words "I don't watch sports"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
"I don't watch anything live on OTA. I use my DVR so I can skip commercials."
In other words "I have cable"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
"Seriously, if it's not on BBCA, it's not worth watching. The networks and their commercials can shove it."
Cable fee AND commercials, thats what needs to be shoved

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
"WHY are there so few OTA bowl games?? WHY??"
Why can I see every Seahawk game OTA and only a couple UW Huskies games OTA?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Blame the conferences all you want, but if the American public wasn't shoveling all that cash into cable, ESPN wouldn't have the means to be the high bidder...
The number one reason guys don't drop cable is ESPN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Title edited to clarify.

The original title was good enough.

The films of De Sica, of Welles, of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made little money and endure as spiritual delights.
--David Mamet
Maltby is offline  
post #16 of 81 Old 12-27-2014, 08:13 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,906
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltby View Post
In other words "I don't watch sports"
No. In other words, "I don't support OTA, which gets its money from advertising." My point with the quotes are that many of the same people who cry about the lack of OTA sports are the very same people whose practices have cost broadcasters the money they'd need to bid on said sports.

Quote:
Cable fee AND commercials, thats what needs to be shoved
So, you'd RATHER have a completely viewer-supported streaming model? You willing to pay a couple hundred per season to watch on your tablet? Without commercials, there's no income for your local broadcaster. So, I don't see the incentive for an OTA broadcaster to carry your Huskies games. You want your Huskies on free tv, but you think commercials should be shoved. Exactly the point I was making.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltby View Post
Why can I see every Seahawk game OTA and only a couple UW Huskies games OTA?
Because Huskies games don't draw nearly as many viewers as an NFL game. Plus, Sunday NFL games are regionalized. An advertiser pays for one commercial that's seen by 20-40 million viewers, though on different games. Of COURSE the networks are going to bid on that. But the NFL holds the rights to the games. And there aren't that many teams. There's no way to put together a similar system for college sports. Too many teams. The best thing for broadcast networks is to cherry pick the teams and matchups that will deliver the biggest audience. Which is exactly what they're doing.

OH, and by the way, if you live outside of Seattle, try watching every single Seahawks game OTA. The NFL does that more or less as a courtesy. The PAC-12 Network could do that, too, but it would undercut their own network. Local stations could buy simulcasts. They don't because they can't sell enough ads to cover the fee. Far, far fewer fans than the Seahawks makes your Huskies far, far less attractive to local broadcasters who see revenue declines for the reasons I've mentioned above. The PAC-12 found it more profitable to form their own network because cable companies would pay to carry it because they can pass that cost along to Huskies fans. Who happily pay, thereby enabling the whole system, which was my point. A coalition of broadcast stations on the west coast isn't going to be able to match the money the PAC-12 is going to get from cable fees + advertising. Unless, of course, people shunned cable.

Quote:
The number one reason guys don't drop cable is ESPN.
Exactly my point.


Quote:
The original title was good enough.
Way too vague. I had to click to see what on earth you meant. If I had to, then its too vague. Topic titles need to be specific as possible. Thanks.
slowbiscuit likes this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.

Last edited by DrDon; 12-27-2014 at 09:09 AM.
DrDon is online now  
post #17 of 81 Old 12-27-2014, 09:39 AM
Senior Member
 
cgmv123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltby View Post
In other words "I have cable"
DVRs for OTA recording exist.
DrDon and xcapri79 like this.

Max Vrany
All opinions are my own unless otherwise specified.
I make no guarantees as to the accuracy of any information given.
GO Pack GO! On Wisconsin! Go Brewers!
cgmv123 is online now  
post #18 of 81 Old 12-27-2014, 10:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
replayrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NY- The tax State
Posts: 4,252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 233 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
...Blame the conferences all you want, but if the American public wasn't shoveling all that cash into cable, ESPN wouldn't have the means to be the high bidder.
Cable co's per "bundling" contribute to ESPN's huge profits- not necessarily by subscriber choice.
With our provider Cablevision (3.5 million subscribers)- if you want anything other than the most basic OTA local channels- you subscribe to a package. All the packages above "Economy" (which has mostly a few throw-away cable networks) include ESPN and their $6 "sports" fee.
So if you want any decent cable networks- you're forced to pay $6/mo to ESPN because of bundling from the cable provider even though you may never watch ESPN.

If you want to stop the insane sports money that's out there currently- make ESPN a separate "Premium" offering like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc.. and we'll see some huge changes very quickly.
xcapri79 likes this.

"If we ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space."

Last edited by replayrob; 12-27-2014 at 10:11 AM.
replayrob is online now  
post #19 of 81 Old 12-27-2014, 10:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by replayrob View Post
If you want to stop the insane sports money that's out there currently- make ESPN a separate "Premium" offering like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc.. and we'll see some huge changes very quickly.
Nice idea, but how exactly is that supposed to happen? Disney bundles ABC with ESPN along with a host of other networks and mandates that ESPN be on the non-premium tiers, and the cable/sat providers are not going to go to war with Disney over this. The only way this happens is if the government steps in and mandates forced unbundling.

In other words it's a non-starter.
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #20 of 81 Old 12-27-2014, 12:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
replayrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NY- The tax State
Posts: 4,252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 233 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post
Nice idea, but how exactly is that supposed to happen? Disney bundles ABC with ESPN along with a host of other networks and mandates that ESPN be on the non-premium tiers
In other words it's a non-starter.
Agreed, I was just kind of stating the obvious out of frustration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post
..and the cable/sat providers are not going to go to war with Disney over this. The only way this happens is if the government steps in and mandates forced unbundling.
Falling cable subscriber number may force the issue sooner rather than later now.
Many people are very upset about sky high cable bundles and are complaining bitterly to the cable providers. Our provider at least now offers an "economy package" for $44/mo in addition to "basic (ota and a handful of free rubbish cable channels) for $13/mo, which are both sports fee free. A couple of years ago they didn't have the "economy" package- it was broadcast basic for $13/month or packages that started at $65/month with the sports fee.
We're nearing a point where you could almost dump cable TV and still get almost everything you had with a decent OTA antenna and one or more streaming services. Cable TV service is still a huge money maker for the cable co's, I don't think they want to drive away all their customers so sooner or later something's got to give.
xcapri79 likes this.

"If we ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space."
replayrob is online now  
post #21 of 81 Old 12-27-2014, 12:53 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maltby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgmv123 View Post

This is actually helpful. Thanks. I had searched in the past and only found subscription services,which I consider to be insanity.

The films of De Sica, of Welles, of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made little money and endure as spiritual delights.
--David Mamet
Maltby is offline  
post #22 of 81 Old 12-27-2014, 01:29 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maltby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
No. In other words, "I don't support OTA, which gets its money from advertising." My point with the quotes are that many of the same people who cry about the lack of OTA sports are the very same people whose practices have cost broadcasters the money they'd need to bid on said sports. .
Cry? Interesting choice of words. Kind of tipping your hand a little bit here aren't you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
You want your Huskies on free tv, but you think commercials should be shoved. Exactly the point I was making. .
But not the point I was making. I'm fine with commercials, I just don't want to also have to pay to watch them.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
OH, and by the way, if you live outside of Seattle, try watching every single Seahawks game OTA. .
I love Seattle and have no intention of moving. Go Hawks! Go Dawgs!


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
The PAC-12 found it more profitable to form their own network because cable companies would pay to carry it because they can pass that cost along to Huskies fans. Who happily pay, thereby enabling the whole system, which was my point.
Agreed, the PAC-12 found it more profitable, as did ESPN I am sure. Not sure why that is such a good thing. And the costs? Games at 11 in the morning, games at 8 o'clock at night, Thursday night games. You've got tickets to the game that you paid a fair amount of money for and you don't even know when it will be. Fans happy with that? Not so much.




Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

Way too vague. I had to click to see what on earth you meant. If I had to, then its too vague. Topic titles need to be specific as possible. Thanks.
You had me at "I had to click..."

The films of De Sica, of Welles, of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made little money and endure as spiritual delights.
--David Mamet
Maltby is offline  
post #23 of 81 Old 12-28-2014, 08:15 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,906
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltby View Post
Cry? Interesting choice of words. Kind of tipping your hand a little bit here aren't you?
Not sure what you mean. I'm not crying about anything. Big sports fan and I have both cable AND DSS, NFLST, MLBEI and ESPNGP. My point that I'll happily state again is that many of the same who complain about the lack of certain sports on free tv are the same ones who have contributed to the situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post
The only way this happens is if the government steps in and mandates forced unbundling.
Which won't happen. Elected officials need media coverage and lots of it, so angering the media giants is the last thing they want to do. Not to mention voting sports fans who 1)far outnumber the cord cutters and 2) won't take too kindly to paying $30-$40/month for ESPN; and major advertisers (read "campaign contributors") who have to contend with increased costs to reach the same audience. And there's no way to say unbundling would lead to more sports on OTA TV. It could just as well lead to a PPV streaming model angering voting fans who have to pay per game for what they used to get on cable. And it's not good for laid-off voting employees of the lesser cable sports nets which will fold. Yeah, if I'm a politician, I'm not touching that grenade.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.

Last edited by DrDon; 12-28-2014 at 08:42 AM.
DrDon is online now  
post #24 of 81 Old 12-28-2014, 08:24 AM
Senior Member
 
xcapri79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North of New Orleans, LA
Posts: 342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 93
I don't know what the fuss is really all about? There is free OTA TV for everyone with a minimal capital cost and there are thousands of channels available with free streaming services, as well as, internet TV using the right searches. There is really little need to maintain an expensive cable subscription any more unless one wants to pay for the convenience of accessibility.
xcapri79 is offline  
post #25 of 81 Old 12-28-2014, 09:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 281
Oh please, this thread is about almost all the bowls being on ESPN not the cord cutter fantasy world with a bunch of sports missing.

If you want sports you have to pay.
osu1991 likes this.
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #26 of 81 Old 12-28-2014, 11:38 AM
Senior Member
 
osu1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Its all about the money, as usual. ESPN will hype the supposed high ratings bowl games get on the sports nets. The OTA games ratings are double what they are on espn, but espn can get 100 million households to pay for their channel and advertising in a bundle, whether they watch it or not.
osu1991 is offline  
post #27 of 81 Old 12-29-2014, 08:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCDSpazz View Post
Genuine minor leagues would be much better. However, South Bend IN and Ann Arbor MI stadiums are not drawing 90-100k fans for "minor league football" - nor would millions more watch at home. The tradition/affiliation with the schools is why so many people care.
Both of those programs have been milking past glories for all they're worth.
The South now rules college football, although the Big Ten is still able to rake in dollars.

There are too many schools with football programs, and a lot of them really cannot afford the programs, especially outside the five major conferences.

One of these days, the student loan money will disappear, and public support for the schools may fade away, too, as people begin questioning the costs.
veedon is offline  
post #28 of 81 Old 12-29-2014, 03:41 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maltby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post

If you want sports you have to pay.
Well, yes, if you want to watch amateurs play you have to pay. Pro football you can watch for free.

The films of De Sica, of Welles, of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made little money and endure as spiritual delights.
--David Mamet
Maltby is offline  
post #29 of 81 Old 12-29-2014, 03:46 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maltby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Not sure what you mean. I'm not crying about anything. Big sports fan and I have both cable AND DSS, NFLST, MLBEI and ESPNGP. My point that I'll happily state again is that many of the same who complain about the lack of certain sports on free tv are the same ones who have contributed to the situation.
Since you have stated it again, I will state that I don't understand how these "complainers" have contributed to, say, the Rosebowl not being OTA.

The films of De Sica, of Welles, of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made little money and endure as spiritual delights.
--David Mamet
Maltby is offline  
post #30 of 81 Old 12-29-2014, 05:32 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,906
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 314
Thought I made it obvious, but sure. Some of the people who have contributed to the revenue loss of local television stations and their associated networks by not watching, skipping ads, etc, are the same ones who are complaining about the bowl games moving to cable.

You DO realize that most sports on broadcast television already loses money, right? Sports is a loss leader. It's used to promote network programming and local programming, which is where local stations and networks get most of their profits. You tune into sports and hopefully, you'll see the promos and tune into those shows. But...you don't. You go to Netflix or binge primetime shows on Hulu or whatever. Then what's the point for the networks? Might as well run some repeats and rake in some profit rather than spend the money for anything less than marquee sports. Move the unprofitable sports to cable.. which is why all the networks now field cable sports networks.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.

Last edited by DrDon; 12-29-2014 at 05:43 PM.
DrDon is online now  
Reply HDTV Programming

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off