UWM postseason ban

[Coleman]

Majority of Americans do not fill out a bracket, watch a bowl game, Final Four.  That's the thing, we inflate things grossly because we are sports fans.

As an example, 21.2 million viewers tuned in Monday night.  Even the Super Bowl drew 112 million viewers.  Not the majority of Americans.

When I see day to day ratings, you would be amazed how few people are really sports fans in this country to the point they watch a lot of sports.  That's one of the issues with television costs right now, sports drives the costs and most people are upset because they don't give a damn about sports but the sports leagues\teams\etc demand it be carried to most customers....meaning they all have to pay.

Thanks for the context. That is really surprising. I would have thought at least half of Americans filled out a bracket, even just the ones who pick teams based on the mascots or to be part of an office activity at work.

[Hards Alumni]

Majority of Americans do not fill out a bracket, watch a bowl game, Final Four.  That's the thing, we inflate things grossly because we are sports fans.

As an example, 21.2 million viewers tuned in Monday night.  Even the Super Bowl drew 112 million viewers.  Not the majority of Americans.

When I see day to day ratings, you would be amazed how few people are really sports fans in this country to the point they watch a lot of sports.  That's one of the issues with television costs right now, sports drives the costs and most people are upset because they don't give a damn about sports but the sports leagues\teams\etc demand it be carried to most customers....meaning they all have to pay.

And this is why a la carte TV will take down cable/dish

When they can offer sports a la carte, adios for me.  I'd gladly pay $5 for each MU game/Packers game.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And this is why a la carte TV will take down cable/dish

When they can offer sports a la carte, adios for me.  I'd gladly pay $5 for each MU game/Packers game.

Except that those that own the sports have no interest in doing so.

Why would ESPN who can force 100 million customers to pay $6 per month per subscriber, whether you like sports or not give that up for the 30% or 35% that MIGHT be willing to pay $18 per month (same revenue for them) a la carte?  There is zero incentive for DISNEY \ ESPN to do that.  Furthermore, Disney has to protect ABC, Disney Kids, etc, etc channels and they roll them all into one to demand carriage for all of them.  NewsCorp the same thing with their sports \ entertainment channels.  So on and so forth.

There is zero incentive for those that create that content to offer it a la carte.  Absolutely none.

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

Except that those that own the sports have no interest in doing so.

Why would ESPN who can force 100 million customers to pay $6 per month per subscriber, whether you like sports or not give that up for the 30% or 35% that MIGHT be willing to pay $18 per month (same revenue for them) a la carte?  There is zero incentive for DISNEY \ ESPN to do that.  Furthermore, Disney has to protect ABC, Disney Kids, etc, etc channels and they roll them all into one to demand carriage for all of them.  NewsCorp the same thing with their sports \ entertainment channels.  So on and so forth.

There is zero incentive for those that create that content to offer it a la carte.  Absolutely none.

The reason why those tv networks are part of huge conglomerates is to leverage their power on the providers.  Take a look at how diversified their portfolios are..... sports, kids, general public ABC, ....  their roots are deep.   It's an arms race, which is one of the reasons why Comcast bought Time Warner.

[Hards Alumni]

Except that those that own the sports have no interest in doing so.

Why would ESPN who can force 100 million customers to pay $6 per month per subscriber, whether you like sports or not give that up for the 30% or 35% that MIGHT be willing to pay $18 per month (same revenue for them) a la carte?  There is zero incentive for DISNEY \ ESPN to do that.  Furthermore, Disney has to protect ABC, Disney Kids, etc, etc channels and they roll them all into one to demand carriage for all of them.  NewsCorp the same thing with their sports \ entertainment channels.  So on and so forth.

There is zero incentive for those that create that content to offer it a la carte.  Absolutely none.

You're living in the past.  Absolutely.  Who is to stop ESPN from creating an agreement with Roku to carry live streaming events?  They already produce the content.  I have plenty of friends that have cut the cable cord that miss sports that would pay for the content to be streamed to them.

You're nuts if you don't think this is what is going to happen.  Why would ESPN cut a revenue source?  There will be people who keep cable for decades (of course, look at land line phones!), but its going to happen much faster than you think.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The reason why those tv networks are part of huge conglomerates is to leverage their power on the providers.  Take a look at how diversified their portfolios are..... sports, kids, general public ABC, ....  their roots are deep.   It's an arms race, which is one of the reasons why Comcast bought Time Warner.

I know it well, I live it every day.   It's what allows a company to tell the Weather Channel to stick it or the Dodgers to take a hike or the Pac 12 Network to try again, vs the ability to do the same thing with a huge conglomerate that owns many channels that are loved and desired by many different customer groups.  These people aren't stupid, Viacom, Disney, NewsCorp, etc....not dumb at all.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're living in the past.  Absolutely.  Who is to stop ESPN from creating an agreement with Roku to carry live streaming events?  They already produce the content.  I have plenty of friends that have cut the cable cord that miss sports that would pay for the content to be streamed to them.

You're nuts if you don't think this is what is going to happen.  Why would ESPN cut a revenue source?  There will be people who keep cable for decades (of course, look at land line phones!), but its going to happen much faster than you think.

LOL.  What is to stop ESPN from creating an agreement with ROKU to stream events...oh, I don't know, maybe several billion $$ deals with their television carriers that have protections that say they can't do that.

I didn't say forever, but right now Disney would be trading dollars for dimes, these people aren't stupid.  Neither are the television providers that negotiate the deals and the protections that are in there.

Ask yourself, why hasn't HBO, ESPN, etc done one of these deals yet?  Ask yourself why WWE's stock has dropped 24% in the last 4 days since they announced their first match via streaming.  Not hard, really not that hard.

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

LOL.  What is to stop ESPN from creating an agreement with ROKU to stream events...oh, I don't know, maybe several billion $$ deals with their television carriers that have protections that say they can't do that.

I didn't say forever, but right now Disney would be trading dollars for dimes, these people aren't stupid.  Neither are the television providers that negotiate the deals and the protections that are in there.

Ask yourself, why hasn't HBO, ESPN, etc done one of these deals yet?  Ask yourself why WWE's stock has dropped 24% in the last 4 days since they announced their first match via streaming.  Not hard, really not that hard.

How much does WWE make off their cable deal?  To me, it seems like they're adopting the same methodology as the NFL with the NFL network. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

How much does WWE make off their cable deal?  To me, it seems like they're adopting the same methodology as the NFL with the NFL network.  

What cable deal?  LOL.  Everyone told them to go pound sand.  No one is carrying their channel.  DISH won't even carry their events anymore and there's more of that coming if I were to guess.

In order for the numbers to even come close to breaking even, they need over 1 million buyers via a la carte.  They came about 60% of that, which is why the stock has been dumped so much the past 4 days.

Instead of splitting 50-50 on each PPV event, they are now taking only $10 a month from a customer and having to incur all those costs to get it up and running.  

Fortunately they are a public company so they can't hide it.  As some of the headlines stated earlier this week

"Hugely disappointing online numbers tank stock"

They are trading dollars for dimes.  Have at it.  

[keefe]

The difference being, the best high school baseball players go straight to the minors, while the best high school basketball players go to college, not the D League.

I could care less about college baseball, as could 95% of Americans.

I played baseball at Marquette...

[ChicosBailBonds]

The difference being, the best high school baseball players go straight to the minors, while the best high school basketball players go to college, not the D League.

I could care less about college baseball, as could 95% of Americans.

Not anymore, many of the best baseball players go to college now under the rules. 

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

What cable deal?  LOL.  Everyone told them to go pound sand.  No one is carrying their channel.  DISH won't even carry their events anymore and there's more of that coming if I were to guess.

In order for the numbers to even come close to breaking even, they need over 1 million buyers via a la carte.  They came about 60% of that, which is why the stock has been dumped so much the past 4 days.

Instead of splitting 50-50 on each PPV event, they are now taking only $10 a month from a customer and having to incur all those costs to get it up and running.  

Fortunately they are a public company so they can't hide it.  As some of the headlines stated earlier this week

"Hugely disappointing online numbers tank stock"

They are trading dollars for dimes.  Have at it.  

Easy there turbo.  I'm not suggesting they're going a la carte.  I merely asked a question.  They do have a cable deal with USA network, do they not?  And now they have the WWE network.  I'm just saying, it looks quite similar to the business model that the NFL uses.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

Easy there turbo.  I'm not suggesting they're going a la carte.  I merely asked a question.  They do have a cable deal with USA network, do they not?  And now they have the WWE network.  I'm just saying, it looks quite similar to the business model that the NFL uses.  

I'm talking about the WWE network they tried to launch the last 3 years and everyone said a resounding no.

[Hards Alumni]

Except that those that own the sports have no interest in doing so.

Why would ESPN who can force 100 million customers to pay $6 per month per subscriber, whether you like sports or not give that up for the 30% or 35% that MIGHT be willing to pay $18 per month (same revenue for them) a la carte?  There is zero incentive for DISNEY \ ESPN to do that.  Furthermore, Disney has to protect ABC, Disney Kids, etc, etc channels and they roll them all into one to demand carriage for all of them.  NewsCorp the same thing with their sports \ entertainment channels.  So on and so forth.

There is zero incentive for those that create that content to offer it a la carte.  Absolutely none.

Because the customer base in pay TV is slowly eroding.  I can barely stand my pay TV costs, which only increase every year with no content added.  For the amount of time that I actually spend watching TV, its actually quite disgusting.  If ESPN told me that I could have access to all of their channels for $10 per month, I'd do it in a heartbeat.  I'd do another package with Viacom for their channels.  Other than that I can live with network TV, and an HBO package.  If it was up to my wife, we'd have cut the cable a while ago.  There is no way I'm the only one that would get on board with this quickly.  The real issue is that eventually people will get sick of the constant gouging and make the switch over to streaming services even if they don't have the top shelf name brand channels.  People will get used to the new stuff for half the cost.  When the 100 million subscribers drops to 90 million watch how quickly ESPN etc will change their tunes.

I understand that there are contracts that exist with providers already, but when those expire... watch out.  We'll probably end up with a lot less channels to choose from, but costs will probably come down as well.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Because the customer base in pay TV is slowly eroding.  I can barely stand my pay TV costs, which only increase every year with no content added.  For the amount of time that I actually spend watching TV, its actually quite disgusting.  If ESPN told me that I could have access to all of their channels for $10 per month, I'd do it in a heartbeat.  I'd do another package with Viacom for their channels.  Other than that I can live with network TV, and an HBO package.  If it was up to my wife, we'd have cut the cable a while ago.  There is no way I'm the only one that would get on board with this quickly.  The real issue is that eventually people will get sick of the constant gouging and make the switch over to streaming services even if they don't have the top shelf name brand channels.  People will get used to the new stuff for half the cost.  When the 100 million subscribers drops to 90 million watch how quickly ESPN etc will change their tunes.

I understand that there are contracts that exist with providers already, but when those expire... watch out.  We'll probably end up with a lot less channels to choose from, but costs will probably come down as well.

Those contracts go to about 2019 to 2027.   

ESPN isn't going to tell you can have access to all their channels for $10...that's the problem.  They would take an economic bloodbath. 

You sure you have your facts straight about dilution of television subscribers?  I think you're going to find it is a lot slower than you think.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/03/18/cord-cutting-the-promise-tv-viewers-keep-on-breaking/

[BrewCity83]

I played baseball at Marquette...

Club baseball?  Was Rick Freeman your coach?