have a stream for tonight?
http://firstrowus1.eu/watch/220915/2/watch-grambling-state-vs-17-marquette.html
Quote from: niquejamesfan on November 12, 2013, 06:18:52 PM
have a stream for tonight?
While you're at it; hope you're donating to the blue and gold fund; buying MU gear; or otherwise paying to support your program...
I will gladly pay $20/month for FS1 or the ability to stream every BE game when either of those options are offered a la carte.... Until then, arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
And yes, I donate to B&G annually (every year since graduation), have four season tickets, and patronize the spirit shop at least 4-5x a year.
Quote from: CAGASS24 on November 12, 2013, 10:17:26 PM
While you're at it; hope you're donating to the blue and gold fund; buying MU gear; or otherwise paying to support your program...
Yeah because your $70 comcast bill is a really great way to support Marquette.
Get off your high horse
Quote from: Benny B on November 12, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
I will gladly pay $20/month for FS1 or the ability to stream every BE game when either of those options are offered a la carte.... Until then, arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Which hopefully will be sometime soon http://qz.com/146523/this-politician-wants-to-blow-up-the-cable-industrys-stranglehold-on-what-you-watch/ (http://qz.com/146523/this-politician-wants-to-blow-up-the-cable-industrys-stranglehold-on-what-you-watch/)
Quote from: Benny B on November 12, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
I will gladly pay $20/month for FS1 or the ability to stream every BE game when either of those options are offered a la carte.... Until then, arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
There are millions with you. Chicos likes to say people want streaming for free. Not true...if all the sports networks were to offer single day/monthly/annual streaming options they would start raking in the real cash...
Quote from: rocky_warrior on November 12, 2013, 10:50:33 PM
There are millions with you. Chicos likes to say people want streaming for free. Not true...if all the sports networks were to offer single day/monthly/annual streaming options they would start raking in the real cash...
I would do this in a heartbeat. Travel a lot for work, so paying for cable, especially with a Netflix subscription, is just outright stupid. But, I would hands down pay for a subscription service to FS1 to be able to watch MU wherever I can instead of settling for crappy internet feeds that fill my browsers with tons of ads.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on November 12, 2013, 10:50:33 PM
There are millions with you. Chicos likes to say people want streaming for free. Not true...if all the sports networks were to offer single day/monthly/annual streaming options they would start raking in the real cash...
The problem is if this happened tons of networks would be in a ton of trouble or just go under. As good as ala carte would be for some networks it would be a disaster for others.
I think if you guys are going to donate to the Blue and Gold fund you should all wait for me to call you from phoneathon to do it.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 12, 2013, 11:36:02 PM
The problem is if this happened tons of networks would be in a ton of trouble or just go under. As good as ala carte would be for some networks it would be a disaster for others.
What would I ever do without VH1, HGTV, etc. I guess those that want the shows would have to pay for them...
Quote from: rocky_warrior on November 13, 2013, 01:41:39 AM
What would I ever do without VH1, HGTV, etc. I guess those that want the shows would have to pay for them...
I have no problem with the survival of the fittest mentality, and there's a lot of stations that I consider crap that I could easily do without. But some channels, like Animal Planet, Nat Geo, etc provide worthwhile programming but not at a consistent enough level that it would attract subscribers. If they go the ala carte route, so be it, I just want to play devil's advocate that it would probably kill some channels that maybe we don't want to see killed.
And let's be honest...VH1, MTV, none of the stuff that panders reality would go anywhere...they'd get enough subscribers, even without showing any music videos ;D
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 12, 2013, 11:41:54 PM
I think if you guys are going to donate to the Blue and Gold fund you should all wait for me to call you from phoneathon to do it.
Now here's a question: Can you call whoever you want or do you have a list of people to call during every shift?
Quote from: rocky_warrior on November 12, 2013, 10:50:33 PM
There are millions with you. Chicos likes to say people want streaming for free. Not true...if all the sports networks were to offer single day/monthly/annual streaming options they would start raking in the real cash...
Uhm, no they wouldn't. If they could, they would. They aren't charity cases. They have a fiduciary responsibility to make money for their shareholders. if the opportunity was there to do it, they would do it.
It's simple, the math doesn't work. At least not yet. I don't know why so many of you believe in this fairy tale. Plenty of very good analysis out there that have gone over this time and time again from publications like Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Multichannel News, etc.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on November 13, 2013, 01:41:39 AM
What would I ever do without VH1, HGTV, etc. I guess those that want the shows would have to pay for them...
Here's the problem gents, you laugh at VH1, HGTV, etc....guess what, WAY WAY WAY more people are on the opposite side of the spectrum and say "what would I ever do without FS1, Fox Sports North, etc, <snicker>". Especially at the prices those sports channels have to charge. VH1 gets a few pennies per subscribe, while your local regional sports network gets a few dollars per subscriber.
The amount of money these sports networks would make going a la carte is a FRACTION of what they make today o the subscribership model. For every Benny and Warrior in DC saying they would pay $20 a month, they would lose 80% of their current subscribers.
This is math 101. If they could do it, they would do it. They don't do it, because they wouldn't stay in business.k
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 12, 2013, 11:36:02 PM
The problem is if this happened tons of networks would be in a ton of trouble or just go under. As good as ala carte would be for some networks it would be a disaster for others.
So the networks delivering content that people want would flourish and the ones that very few watch would fail. Back in the old days, before people started confusing competition with bullying, this would have been viewed as a good thing, not a "problem".
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 13, 2013, 08:49:06 AM
So the networks delivering content that people want would flourish and the ones that very few watch would fail. Back in the old days, before people started confusing competition with bullying, this would have been viewed as a good thing, not a "problem".
I loved television with only 3 channels...it was awesome. Careful what you wish for, most of the RSNs would go out of business....no Big East games for MU fans anymore....no more big checks to MU, etc. It would be awesome. All those schools that have had an opportunity because the pie was grown bigger would no longer be recipients of it as the pie would shrink.
Look, I get your native beliefs on this, I'm with you on most of these things, but I don't think you and others truly understand what it would mean.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 13, 2013, 08:46:55 AM
The amount of money these sports networks would make going a la carte is a FRACTION of what they make today o the subscribership model. For every Benny and Warrior in DC saying they would pay $20 a month, they would lose 80% of their current subscribers.
This is math 101. If they could do it, they would do it. They don't do it, because they wouldn't stay in business.k
If what you're saying is true then these sports channels should have two options - 1. Get their costs under control so that they don't need to be subsidized by VH1, etc., or 2. Go out of business.
Just because you or I like sports doesn't mean that the people who don't should have to subsidize our preferences. Player's salaries, franchise values, announcer's paychecks, sport's networks worth, etc., are all totally out of whack because of this rigged game. Of course all who benefit unfairly from it won't want to change. They're used to stealing money by the boatload and they like it. No surprise there. Corporate welfare.
Chicos, we get it... you're the type of guy who tells people to turn away from the skid when your car slips out of control, and you genuinely seem like a hero to the lowest common denominator because what you say intuitively makes sense to the naive and uninsightful. But those of us who can see through the BS - or have spent many a winter night doing donuts in a parking lot - know that to regain control you must turn into the skid, yet your passengers will chastise, scream and yell at you right up until the moment they realize that you just saved their lives.
It might not be the near-term, but cablegeddon is coming whether you like it or not; you can scream and yell all you want, but in the end, the consumer will indeed be better off.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 13, 2013, 09:06:44 AM
If what you're saying is true then these sports channels should have two options - 1. Get their costs under control so that they don't need to be subsidized by VH1, etc., or 2. Go out of business.
Just because you or I like sports doesn't mean that the people who don't should have to subsidize our preferences. Player's salaries, franchise values, announcer's paychecks, sport's networks worth, etc., are all totally out of whack because of this rigged game. Of course all who benefit unfairly from it won't want to change. They're used to stealing money by the boatload and they like it. No surprise there. Corporate welfare.
That would be easy if you are making widgets, to get your costs under control. Problem is that sports is a human business, the cost of goods are tied to paying athletes and\or rights fees. So unless you can get the NFL, NBA, Big Ten, Big East, SEC, etc to lower their rights fees, lower their salaries, it isn't going to happen. I'm glad you recognize the costs in your post, most people can't even make that connection to understand the drivers. Plus 1 for you. The next question is, how do you do it? Do you think any of those entities are going to take a hit? I don't.
This is why I have kept telling you guys for the last few years to compare this industry to "normal" industries is a fool's errand. These aren't widgets. This isn't an assembly line for cars. Silicon chips are not being mass produced here. Again, I tip my hat to you that you recognize the cost drivers, because most folks don't get it.
Quote from: Benny B on November 13, 2013, 09:11:53 AM
Chicos, we get it... you're the type of guy who tells people to turn away from the skid when your car slips out of control, and you genuinely seem like a hero to the lowest common denominator because what you say intuitively makes sense to the naive and uninsightful. But those of us who can see through the BS - or have spent many a winter night doing donuts in a parking lot - know that to regain control you must turn into the skid, yet your passengers will chastise, scream and yell at you right up until the moment they realize that you just saved their lives.
It might not be the near-term, but cablegeddon is coming whether you like it or not; you can scream and yell all you want, but in the end, the consumer will indeed be better off.
Benny
I've said to you on a number of occasions that I understand where you are coming from. I'm not spewing any BS, I'm telling you the reality of what is going on. I may not even like it...did you ever consider that? I'm on the other side with tremendous pressures to bring in those dollars to make some of this go, so we can pay these networks what they demand.
As for whether the consumer will be better off, that is all in the eye of the beholder. If Black Entertainment Television goes away completely because there aren't enough purchasers, maybe that's a good thing or maybe that's a really bad thing for those consumers of that product. If Smithsonian Channel goes away maybe that is a really good thing, but maybe not such a good thing for our "overly educated" electorate <snicker>. It will be interesting to watch.
What I still don't understand is that despite you saying for years now that any day now (I see you have come off that ledge a bit) the industry was going to change you keep ignoring the fundamentals to it. Why? You are a smart guy, why do you ignore the realities? Why do you ignore the ramifications of your desires?
If it could be done profitably, it would be done. The channels would sell directly to you, over the internet or whatever other mechanism they would use. They could do it today. Why don't you think they have done it? I know we would LOVE to only have to pay for the channels we want to distribute, why can't we? This isn't hard.....it really isn't.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on November 12, 2013, 10:25:28 PM
Yeah because your $70 comcast bill is a really great way to support Marquette.
Get off your high horse
My guess is that $70 comcast bill (or barely $2 a day) is delivering news, sports, movies, weather, entertainment 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on well over 150 channels.
Think about that for a second....and yes, a portion of that goes to Marquette through the Big East.
I wish my mobile phone bill was only $70. I wish my wife's Starbucks habit was only $70 a month.
When you put things into perspective, $2 a day for what you get and you are supporting MU, well I know my family spends money on things that have less value (my wife would say differently about her coffee). To each their own.
I do find it interesting however that it's "ok" to steal these services because they are their to be stolen. I wonder if those that believe this are willing to offer their services or those of their company for free also. ;D
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 13, 2013, 09:34:44 AM
I do find it interesting however that it's "ok" to steal these services because they are their to be stolen. I wonder if those that believe this are willing to offer their services or those of their company for free also. ;D
No. But my companies have not engaged in obvious monopolies and heavily lobbied for questionable legislation, welfare, etc. and generally skirted the system at every turn.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 13, 2013, 09:34:44 AM
My guess is that $70 comcast bill (or barely $2 a day) is delivering news, sports, movies, weather, entertainment 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on well over 150 channels.
Think about that for a second....and yes, a portion of that goes to Marquette through the Big East.
I wish my mobile phone bill was only $70. I wish my wife's Starbucks habit was only $70 a month.
When you put things into perspective, $2 a day for what you get and you are supporting MU, well I know my family spends money on things that have less value (my wife would say differently about her coffee). To each their own.
I do find it interesting however that it's "ok" to steal these services because they are their to be stolen. I wonder if those that believe this are willing to offer their services or those of their company for free also. ;D
Chicos, I have no quibble with any of these points. I am a cable subscriber. I don't steal content. I think there is value in subscribing to cable, or I wouldn't do it.
My quibble is with the assertion that subscribing to cable is somehow equivalent to donating to the Blue and Gold fund, which is what the poster was suggesting. I actually do donate as well, but I've never considered my monthly cable bill a donation to Marquette.
And yes, I do realize that FS1 gets a dollar or two out of that bill, and a certain percentage of that goes to the Big East, and a certain percentage of that goes to Marquette. But again, that doesn't make you a charitable hero to your alma mater for being a cable subscriber.
Chicos is spot-on. If anyone is really interested in the economics of bundling and how it applies to the cable industry, I recommend taking fifteen minutes to watch the youtube video from Marginal Revolution. The first ten minutes covers bundling in general and the last five applies it to cable TV.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/bundling.html (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/bundling.html)
In general, for industries with high fixed costs and near zero marginal costs, it's a net benefit to everyone (firm and consumer) for bundling to be involved.
Also, there's a general relationship between innovation and monopoly structure for industries with high fixed costs (television, telecom, etc). More competition reduces innovation in these industries, which is something to think about if you like being able to watch MU on a new cable channel like FS1.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 13, 2013, 09:16:59 AM
That would be easy if you are making widgets, to get your costs under control. Problem is that sports is a human business, the cost of goods are tied to paying athletes and\or rights fees. So unless you can get the NFL, NBA, Big Ten, Big East, SEC, etc to lower their rights fees, lower their salaries, it isn't going to happen. I'm glad you recognize the costs in your post, most people can't even make that connection to understand the drivers. Plus 1 for you. The next question is, how do you do it? Do you think any of those entities are going to take a hit? I don't.
This is why I have kept telling you guys for the last few years to compare this industry to "normal" industries is a fool's errand. These aren't widgets. This isn't an assembly line for cars. Silicon chips are not being mass produced here. Again, I tip my hat to you that you recognize the cost drivers, because most folks don't get it.
The cost drivers are artificially inflated because non consumers are paying for the product. Imagine a restaurant paying a meat purveyor $40 a steak that his customers will only pay $30 for. What's the fair solution? Have people who don't go to the restaurant make up the difference and then some so that the restaurant owner can make a profit? Or tell the meat purveyor that he'll have to "get by" on what his product is actually worth? I get that telling the commissioners, owners, players, announcers, colleges, etc., to "get by" on the ridiculously large amounts of money their efforts actually earn but give up their phony "bonuses" (subsidies) won't be popular with them. People who are unfairly compensated will, over time, inevitably come to view ill gotten gain as earned. But the NFL, NBA, Big 10, etc., don't "set" their rights fees - they take whatever they can get. Take the sports networks off of welfare and the rights fees will become real. Still enormous to normal people, but real.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 13, 2013, 10:00:28 AM
The cost drivers are artificially inflated because non consumers are paying for the product. Imagine a restaurant paying a meat purveyor $40 a steak that his customers will only pay $30 for. What's the fair solution? Have people who don't go to the restaurant make up the difference and then some so that the restaurant owner can make a profit? Or tell the meat purveyor that he'll have to "get by" on what his product is actually worth? I get that telling the commissioners, owners, players, announcers, colleges, etc., to "get by" on the ridiculously large amounts of money their efforts actually earn but give up their phony "bonuses" (subsidies) won't be popular with them. People who are unfairly compensated will, over time, inevitably come to view ill gotten gain as earned. But the NFL, NBA, Big 10, etc., don't "set" their rights fees - they take whatever they can get. Take the sports networks off of welfare and the rights fees will become real. Still enormous to normal people, but real.
Yup, that is true. Non consumers are paying for it which is why I keep telling you not to compare it to other industries, it's not the same.
Should we start with Buzz Williams $2M+ salary as the first sacrificial lamb. He can take a pay cut and then we go from there? When Buzz leaves, do you intend to pay the next coach $250K?
It all sounds so easy until the real world gets in the way. You should watch the video that Henry linked. You really should.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 13, 2013, 09:43:07 AM
No. But my companies have not engaged in obvious monopolies and heavily lobbied for questionable legislation, welfare, etc. and generally skirted the system at every turn.
For the vast majority of people, they have a minimum of 3 television service providers to choose from (two satellite and a cable company). Where I live, I have 4 to choose from (Directv, Dish, AT&T Uverse, Time Warner Cable). Not exactly a monopoly.
Sounds like you don't like how our political system works....can't say I disagree with you. I heard all about change a few years ago....change.....
Quote from: Henry Sugar on November 13, 2013, 09:59:31 AM
Chicos is spot-on. If anyone is really interested in the economics of bundling and how it applies to the cable industry, I recommend taking fifteen minutes to watch the youtube video from Marginal Revolution. The first ten minutes covers bundling in general and the last five applies it to cable TV.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/bundling.html (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/bundling.html)
In general, for industries with high fixed costs and near zero marginal costs, it's a net benefit to everyone (firm and consumer) for bundling to be involved.
Also, there's a general relationship between innovation and monopoly structure for industries with high fixed costs (television, telecom, etc). More competition reduces innovation in these industries, which is something to think about if you like being able to watch MU on a new cable channel like FS1.
Appreciate the links. I do have a bit of nit on the last paragraph, at least in this industry, but I guess it depends how you examine it. For many years cable was actually a monopoly and they did very little to innovate. Then satellite came around and made TV way better, that forced cable to innovate (or at least copy) to bring better technology, more offerings, etc. To me, competition forced their hands to compete with a better product or die. Just my two cents.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 13, 2013, 11:29:31 AM
Appreciate the links. I do have a bit of nit on the last paragraph, at least in this industry, but I guess it depends how you examine it. For many years cable was actually a monopoly and they did very little to innovate. Then satellite came around and made TV way better, that forced cable to innovate (or at least copy) to bring better technology, more offerings, etc. To me, competition forced their hands to compete with a better product or die. Just my two cents.
I think it's more accurate to say that industries with high fixed costs are innovative with fewer entrants (two or three) rather than a pure monopoly structure or a highly competitive environment
Quote from: Henry Sugar on November 13, 2013, 11:39:17 AM
I think it's more accurate to say that industries with high fixed costs are innovative with fewer entrants (two or three) rather than a pure monopoly structure or a highly competitive environment
Fair enough
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 13, 2013, 11:16:10 AM
Yup, that is true. Non consumers are paying for it which is why I keep telling you not to compare it to other industries, it's not the same.
Should we start with Buzz Williams $2M+ salary as the first sacrificial lamb. He can take a pay cut and then we go from there? When Buzz leaves, do you intend to pay the next coach $250K?
It all sounds so easy until the real world gets in the way. You should watch the video that Henry linked. You really should.
If almost 90% of Buzz's salary is really being paid by people who never consume college basketball (as your numbers suggest) then yes - but of course that % is unreal, so the amount of the haircut he would have to take is likewise. That said, should Buzz's (and Cal's, Pastner's, Crean's, Izzo's, Bo's, etc.) compensation be a more fair and accurate measure of the revenue they help produce and not be augmented by money they steal? In a word, yes.
Money they steal....sigh.
I truly think you should watch that video, or many others I can provide. Does a nice job of showing why it is actually pro consumer, etc. To each their own.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 13, 2013, 12:10:10 PM
Money they steal....sigh.
I truly think you should watch that video, or many others I can provide. Does a nice job of showing why it is actually pro consumer, etc. To each their own.
I get "bundling". It's everywhere, and for many, it works. But some people don't want the CD, they want the single. Some people want the burger and fries and not the "meal' that includes a drink allegedly worth $1 for a mere 50c more. I'm not saying a side of bacon shouldn't cost more ala carte than it does in a bacon, eggs, hash browns, toast and coffee "bundle", just that it should be made available and at not at a ridiculous price. In short, rewarding mega consumers of content with a "big gulp" kind of deal while allowing the only occasional one to pay a reasonable premium for ala carte options doesn't seem unreasonable (let alone content provider Armageddon) to me. The link provided by Henry did nothing to dissuade me from that notion.
http://www.thewrap.com/sports-rights-17-billion-2017-tv-lions-share
Timing of this article couldn't be better