Further proof...we're now FBS in name only

[Globetrotter]

That was a pretty good article that really sums it up nicely. While I agree all consumers prefer globes future of consuming sports content online on demand, I'm just not sure we're on our way there anytime soon. Not when the current model makes everyone tons o money...so much money that they would never be able to recoup the revenue by going to a pay to stream model.

I'm afraid the only way we get to where we want to be is if it goes the route of music...people stop buying and start stealing. If people drop cable in droves and go to illegal free streams then maybe the leagues will adopt that model, but I don't see it happening right now.

As is all of the leagues have blackout rules. Even the ones like mlb that offer an online streaming subscription black out your local team forcing you back to cable. ESPN has bought tons of content so they can bend isps over the way have always done to cable providers.

The problem is cable companies, sports networks, and sports leagues are getting fatter and fatter off this revenue as they have eoliferated the cable model, and even moved it to streaming content. They've gotten so fat off it that the revenue cannot be duplicated on a pay o use model...they're making too much off people that would never consume in that model. Until they start to take some real hits in the pocketbook from people dropping suacriptions they're under no motivation to change.

I think we are nearing a tipping point. I watch next to no basketball or baseball. I watch BG Basketball and BG football and pro football. I think the person who watches all kinds of sports is now becoming less and less. You will see people making tough decisions. Do I want to pay for cable to watch a few OSU games I would otherwise miss or do I want to not pay for Cable and save about $500+ dollars a year. People will give up OSU drubbing Kent State for $500. And when they don't get it they won't care they don't have it. Gradually the interest in the sports will waver. I wonder if the cable prices going up, as a result of ESPN, will end up killing ESPN (I don't ever see ESPN really dieing but you get the idea). Paying for cable used to be not so big of a deal. Now to me I have been asking myself why I have it for months. TV is generally terrible, I will be able to get HBO Go on demand in April and I normally just watch the NFL.

[Rollo83]

That was a pretty good article that really sums it up nicely. While I agree all consumers prefer globes future of consuming sports content online on demand, I'm just not sure we're on our way there anytime soon. Not when the current model makes everyone tons o money...so much money that they would never be able to recoup the revenue by going to a pay to stream model.

I'm afraid the only way we get to where we want to be is if it goes the route of music...people stop buying and start stealing. If people drop cable in droves and go to illegal free streams then maybe the leagues will adopt that model, but I don't see it happening right now.

As is all of the leagues have blackout rules. Even the ones like mlb that offer an online streaming subscription black out your local team forcing you back to cable. ESPN has bought tons of content so they can bend isps over the way have always done to cable providers.

The problem is cable companies, sports networks, and sports leagues are getting fatter and fatter off this revenue as they have eoliferated the cable model, and even moved it to streaming content. They've gotten so fat off it that the revenue cannot be duplicated on a pay o use model...they're making too much off people that would never consume in that model. Until they start to take some real hits in the pocketbook from people dropping suacriptions they're under no motivation to change.

I think we are nearing a tipping point. I watch next to no basketball or baseball. I watch BG Basketball and BG football and pro football. I think the person who watches all kinds of sports is now becoming less and less. You will see people making tough decisions. Do I want to pay for cable to watch a few OSU games I would otherwise miss or do I want to not pay for Cable and save about $500+ dollars a year. People will give up OSU drubbing Kent State for $500. And when they don't get it they won't care they don't have it. Gradually the interest in the sports will waver. I wonder if the cable prices going up, as a result of ESPN, will end up killing ESPN (I don't ever see ESPN really dieing but you get the idea). Paying for cable used to be not so big of a deal. Now to me I have been asking myself why I have it for months. TV is generally terrible, I will be able to get HBO Go on demand in April and I normally just watch the NFL.

We have been waiting for pay-per-view of major sporting events to become common place for decades. Boxing and the stupid MMA or professional wrestling are the only "sporting events" that have really pulled this off so far.

Look for the major sports leagues to move towards buying individual events. Most people wont buy a season pass for NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL but they will pay $30 for a select game. Hell, I do that now if a BG game is on ESPN Gameplan only. I can't travel often 2 1/2 hours from my home to attend a BG game for $10, but I do pay $25 to sit in the comfort of my home and watch the game on TV.

Ticket sales to watching games online will be the next big thing for professional sports.

[hammb]

As I tried to say earlier and flipper cleared up. Until it is easily stealable and revenue starts going down nobody is currently motivated to provide what the consumers actually want.

And the way these things work the leagues font even care if you watch or not right now. As long as you still carry that cable subscription you're paying them.

I think the numbers we've shown here, along with the sentiment that nobody watches that much anymore, guarantees that a pay to stream model can no possibly be revenue neutral. So that means, as flipper said, it has to get to the point where they're losing so much money that they will choose to lose a little more. Illegal streams are enough of a pain (and too low of quality) for the casual fan right now. Even me, in the it industry, would still rather pay than deal with the headache. Until it gets so easy everyone is doing it, a la napster, its not going to cut into the bottom line and there is no motivation for the ESPN's of the world to change.

The real kicker will be when those who never watch sports start to realize that the only reason their cable bills are so high is the sports. Maybe when those people start dropping cable the leagues and networks will see a hit.

I would gladly go to an all streaming model if I could. I don't think we're nearly as close as that tipping point as people think.

[Flipper]

On another note...HDTV and the explosion in broadcast sports is creating a drag on attendance...at least so far as college football seems to go. Attendance is down accoss the board with a few exceptions (Alabama, OSU and some others), particularly on weak OOC games. I think that's due in part because you can now watch the game on widesceens with HDTV. I have a 46" TV in my barn...when I first watched football in HDTV I ws stunned at the level of detail I could see. Hell...you can get insight into the QB's emotional state if they use the right close up shot because you can clearly read his face. Why should I spend $$ on tickets and pay huge $$ for food and be forced to sneak in beer or whatever when I can sit home with my friends, eat and drink what I want and see evry key play from multile angles in high def? So...colleges may be forced to make the same deal the MAC has...forget about attendance on some games to satisfy TV or they can serve both masters by scheduling rell tough home games and risk being eliminated from serious top 4 discussion.

[bgsufn]

I work part time for a local cable company and it's not the cable companies driving this - it's the networks, primarily the sports networks. At my little company, ESPN gets nearly $5 per subscriber for their networks (ESPN, 2, Classic and News). That drives up the cost for everyone to the point where we barely break even (we are a municipal cable provider). And now all the local channels want in on the action - they want to be paid to retransmit a signal that many can pick up for free. It's insane. Unless the content providers reduce their demands, it's going to continue to get worse.

[Schadenfreude]

Has this bubble helped or hurt the MAC?

I tend to think, right now, it helps. I don't think November #MACtion is a thing without this bubble. ESPN has so many channels to fill that that it needs #MACtion, which provides the network more of a value than the alternatives (poker, fishing shows, maybe the NHL ).

Twenty years ago, it was basically impossible to keep up with a Bowling Green football game if you lived outside of the range of WFOB or WBGU radio. There was a service where you could make a phone call and pay something like 99 cents per minute to listen to the radio feed, but I think that was it. The MAC was much more marginalized than we are now.

If everything becomes pay per view, do we go back to that level of marginalization?

I don't know the answer. I don't know if anyone does.

[Flipper]

I work part time for a local cable company and it's not the cable companies driving this - it's the networks, primarily the sports networks. At my little company, ESPN gets nearly $5 per subscriber for their networks (ESPN, 2, Classic and News). That drives up the cost for everyone to the point where we barely break even (we are a municipal cable provider). And now all the local channels want in on the action - they want to be paid to retransmit a signal that many can pick up for free. It's insane. Unless the content providers reduce their demands, it's going to continue to get worse.

Yes..and the fact that it is insane is what will ultimately force change....I'm not one to call for a whole bunch of new laws, but i would definitley get behind legislation that forces cable providers to disclose the cost per channel, either as a public notice online or, preferably, on your bill. How long will my wife's bff...a woman who can't tell a basketball from a volleyball...go along with paying $5.00 per month for ESPN and more $$ for Fox Sports...NBCSN..etc...

[hammb]

There is no doubt the networks are driving a lot of this. They know live sports is the only thing close to DVR proof...and it sells cable subscriptions. That raises their revenue which allows them to give massive contracts to sports leagues for the content.

The other thing I was thinking that is needed to kill this hits on what globe said earlier. Few people sit and watch complete games. We flip. The streaming that must exist must be streamable to devices and easily switched from game to game. Espn3 does a good job of this but that does nothing to help streaming cause. Espn3 is like saying you're pirating DVDs by paying the same person for the download. Its still a rape job by the network....just doing the ISP instead of the cable provider (who oftentimes is the same person).

On the one hand I'm glad ime warner has held their ground and not raped all of their internet subscribers for espn3, but on the other hand it pisses me off that I cannot watch.

Something like Napster need to come along to wreck the industry.

[Lord_Byron]

Our local Time Warner released its rates for next year and have now added a $2.75 Sports Delivery surcharge. Subscribers are not able to opt out of it, but rather than just raise rates by $2.75, they decided to break it out.

Not sure what their end-game is, but I'm guessing it will piss a lot of people off. . .

[Lord_Byron]

I think this might be the tipping point. With a Smart-TV and Antenna along with this product, I may be cutting the cable cord:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/05/media/d ... index.html" target="_blank

[hammb]

I think this might be the tipping point. With a Smart-TV and Antenna along with this product, I may be cutting the cable cord:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/05/media/d ... index.html" target="_blank

That product sounds AWESOME to me. I haven't done any research outside of the article you posted, but that is quite the package. Firstly the main channels it includes are likely 90% of what I watch, so I like what they chose.

For me to make the leap though I want apps for my devices. Mainly, the stuff I've already got plugged into my TV like my Roku and my XBoxOne. Adding it to the XBoxOne would be ideal.

I would also be curious if subscribing to that service includes ESPN3?

Either way that's a pretty awesome service that comes at a fraction of the cost of a normal cable subscription for 2 reasons. One you're required to bring your own Broadband so there is no delivery infrastructure to pay for...secondly it is a much smaller package of channels so that we're not subsidizing networks we don't watch.

When I get some time I may have to look a bit more deeply into this...the ridiculous savings over my DirecTV bill is very appealing.

[Globetrotter]

I think this might be the tipping point. With a Smart-TV and Antenna along with this product, I may be cutting the cable cord:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/05/media/d ... index.html" target="_blank

That product sounds AWESOME to me. I haven't done any research outside of the article you posted, but that is quite the package. Firstly the main channels it includes are likely 90% of what I watch, so I like what they chose.

For me to make the leap though I want apps for my devices. Mainly, the stuff I've already got plugged into my TV like my Roku and my XBoxOne. Adding it to the XBoxOne would be ideal.

I would also be curious if subscribing to that service includes ESPN3?

Either way that's a pretty awesome service that comes at a fraction of the cost of a normal cable subscription for 2 reasons. One you're required to bring your own Broadband so there is no delivery infrastructure to pay for...secondly it is a much smaller package of channels so that we're not subsidizing networks we don't watch.

When I get some time I may have to look a bit more deeply into this...the ridiculous savings over my DirecTV bill is very appealing.

Would love your input. Can't wait to cut the cord.

[Falcon137]

Cutting the cord was one of the best decisions I have made. From April - October I didn't watch much TV anyway. The sports teams I follow, I am generally at the game. As I've gotten older, I don't really care about watching sports I have no rooting interest in.

Through the winter I have begun working my way through shows like, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire, Suits, and a few others. Most of the time I just flipped through cable anyway. Amazon Prime has tons of HGTV shows and old sitcoms that can kill 30 or 40 minutes.

I miss regional sports channels more than anything. But watching 3 or 4 Reds games a month and a few Blue Jackets games a month wasn't worth a cable bill.

[zete]

6 years and 48 million dollars As SI would say: Sign of the Apocalypse

[MarkL]

Harbaugh's salary is actually lower than that. Still a few million more than I'll make anytime soon. The remainder to match the 48 million figure is assistant salary pool. Harbaugh seems interested in high assistant pay, which is becoming a trend. The head coach is only as good as his assistants.