Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Can ESPN Survive As Cable TV Fades?


jayboogieman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know people like to gamble and all but I laugh at those commercials. Make every game more interesting, bet on every play, yada yada. Just another tax on the stupid who don’t make money gambling.

On ESPN, they have already faded. Only way they stay relevant is through content like showing exclusive NFL games, MLB, college conferences, etc. Problem is there are bigger streamers out there and the SEC could decide to just do their own channel when they have 36 teams and a 3 week SEC championship tourney before the BCS championship.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

On ESPN, they have already faded. Only way they stay relevant is through content like showing exclusive NFL games, MLB, college conferences, etc. Problem is there are bigger streamers out there and the SEC could decide to just do their own channel when they have 36 teams and a 3 week SEC championship tourney before the BCS championship.

The video gets into this a little bit and one of the former ESPN executives says the goals for ESPN is to tie up the different leagues in as many long terms contracts as they can. ESPN signed the SEC from CBS in 2020 and the 10 year contract started with the 2024 season.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx for posting that video - had been looking for it on CNBC's schedule but it never showed up as a dedicated show.

The ESPN history book THOSE GUYS HAVE ALL THE FUN gets into the details of what built ESPN to be the cable/sports powerhouse. Highly recommended read.

The biggest issue is that ESPN is the primary reason for high cable prices being passed along to consumers -- and as consumer choose to cancel their primary cable subscriptions, ESPN (and Disney) revenues drop.

The direct-to-consumer ESPN service that is supposed to come out in the next year or so (NOT the sports bundle partnership, but ESPN by itself) was originally rumored to be in the $50/month range - but new info suggests a more affordable $25/$30 month charge.  It's more more than the $13/m ESPN charges for cable subscribers to placate the traditional cable providers.

ESPN needs subscriber and advertiser money to lock in exclusive broadcast rights for sports that bring in eyeballs. Social media isn't going to help you watch the Masters or the National College Football championship.

Getting exclusive rights isn't specific to ESPN. NBC with the Olympics, FOX and CBS with (most) NFL football games.... as long as there's live sports that interest a viewing audience, there's going to be some fee/cost involved from *somewhere*. 

Question is whether the broadcasters will ever just walk away and say "no more, it's not worth the cost/effort to bother"

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Darrell Jackson would be a fantastic pickup for us, I think he could replace 80% of what A’Shawn gave us last year. With more passing rush upside going forward in the future, I’m a big proponent of large framed defensive tackles. Pairing Derrick Brown with another 6’5 35inch arm length DT would be so fun to watch. Let’s continue being huge in the middle, allow our linebackers to flow to the ball uninterrupted.
    • Fully agree that the best thing to do is ignore them, which takes a away their thrill of thinking they got to you.
    • I agree with you on the pick of Thienemen in the first. I think he will still be there and he's a smart, fast and sturdy player. He's who we need back there. In the second, I like Rodriguez over Golday. I agree that off the ball linebackers are desperately needed here, even with our great FA pick up. I think with our third pick, we're going to dip into OT territory instead of the D-line. While I agree that we need another disruptor at the point of attack that is stout enough to just stonewall a center and a guard at the same time, we've got a shaky and expensive O-line at the present that is just about to age out of the game. I think we snag Blake Miller out of Clemson here and give him a year behind Moton to learn and put some weight and strength on. He can also jump right in and play right guard at any time. Also, and this might sound crazy, but anyone who has put up with multiple seasons at Clemson will be able to take the heat and humidity of training camp at the start of the season and early games against the NFCSouth.  Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine. We do need that QB for competition and realistically to study for back-up. Luke Altmyer out of Illinois seems to fit the mold of the point guard type QB that they want from Bryce. That'd make an apples to apples situation that could make coaching and game planning easy. On the other hand North Dakota State's Cole Payton could be an intriguing choice as well as a big dual threat guy. Both could be there for our fourth pick or both could be gone. Will QBs continue to slide this season like last? Who knows? 
×
×
  • Create New...