Is ESPN In Trouble (cord-cutter)

[MU82]

see the first sentence

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=48239.msg803218#msg803218


I placed Disney (DIS) on my Best Ideas List as a short last Nov. 27 at $116.25.

and then see the next sentence

I remain short Disney despite its recent fall to $89 a share, but I am down to tag ends.

That means he cover most of his short at a big profit but still had a little left.

and his conclusion

Disney has been a terrific short. Though I have covered most of this short, I would not yet buy the shares.

DIS currently is trading at about 9.5x trailing 12-month EBITD, so the shares are starting to get cheaper given its core brand franchise, free cash flow and high level of overall profitability.

I am close to covering the balance of my short in Disney. It seems like $75 to $80 is a good buy entry point.

Here is his update today ....

The Mouse No Longer Roars
Doug Kass
MAY 11, 2016 | 10:15 AM EDT
Stock quotes in this article:  DIS

I placed Walt Disney Co. (DIS) on my "Best Short Ideas" list back on Nov. 27 at $116.25 a share -- which turns out to have been a good move, as the stock is tanking today and down to about $102 at last check.

Disney seemed almost universally endorsed by both the sell side and buy side not so long ago. The expression often used was "a long runway of growth."

But falling subscriptions at Disney's key ESPN subsidiary have been underscoring "cord-cutting" concerns, and the stock moved steadily lower in recent months until it made a roughly $86-a-share intraday bottom in February.

I covered most of my short position into that decline, but Disney seemed to recover over the past several weeks as part of the broad market's rebound. So, I built my DIS short up again -- particularly increasing my position over the past two weeks ahead of last night's earnings report (which was a miss).

The principal threats that I see Disney facing include:
•   Margin challenges in its theme parks.
•   Continued cord-cutting (and secular headwinds at cable networks).
•   Peak sports viewership.

These seem likely to reduce the company's secular earnings-per-share growth from more than 20% annually over the past five years to less than 10% over the next five years. To me, analysts' consensus projections of 13% annual EPS growth are far too generous.

I expect fiscal 2017 to be particularly challenging for Disney, with year-over-year EPS growth only coming in at about 5% -- well below consensus estimates.

My downside price target for the stock is about $75 to $80, which would represent 13.5x forward EPS. Given the slowdown that I expect in Disney's growth, a 1.3x to 1.4x price-to-earnings-to-growth ratio (or "P/E/G") seems reasonable to me.

Here are some previous columns that outlined my bear case for the stock:
•   Kass Katch of the Week: Short Disney (Nov. 30, 2015)
•   Apple, Disney and 'The Big Short' (Dec. 22, 2015)
•   More on My Disney Short (Jan. 5, 2016)
•   Peak Sports Viewership (Jan. 19, 2016)
•   Short Disney (Redux) (Feb. 1, 2016)

Walt Disney Co. (DIS) is tumbling today, and I reiterated my longstanding bear case for the stock.
Disney shares were down some 4% at last check, as the company yesterday reportedearnings per share after the bell that failed for the first time in five years to meet analysts' consensus expectations.

DIS fell by as much as about $5.50 a share in after-hours trading, taking about $8 billion out of the company's enterprise value. (I used the decline to add to my short position.)
Here's my take on last night's earnings report:

•   Revenues rose about 4%, but net income only grew by 2%.

•   Cable-network sales were lower, while EBITD increased just 3% -- a big disappointment given the flow-through from Star Wars: the Force Awakens profits.

•   Consumer-product profits were also lower year over year, suggesting continued significant problems in the interactive area. That's a business that Disney has never gotten right and that's now hidden from view, as DIS has discontinued its video-console unit.

•   Media-network results grew modestly in the quarter. This segment represents nearly half of the company's sales and more than 60% of the last quarter's net income.

•   Theme-park revenue disappointed, which is bad because it represents 30% of sales and 15% of net income. As I noted in my previous missive, problems with this business represent one of my major secular concerns for the company.

•   Disney has a strong backlog of film releases, but this is well-known and the company's sales-and-profits headwinds lie elsewhere. After all, studio entertainment and the consumer-products/interactive-media segments only represent about a fifth of Disney's sales and roughly 25% of profits.

Jim "El Capitan" Cramer addressed this last point in his opening missive today, writing:

"Nothing's more stark than the way that CEO Bob Iger ended his conference call: 'I want to add one thing, I am actually kind of surprised that after 45 minutes of questioning we didn't get one question about our studio. But I just want to reiterate that the studio's results were up tremendously for the quarter and up over 60% for the first two quarters of the year.'

Bob's right. The studios are on fire. However, if you judge things from the stock market prism, the way to play it isn't Disney; it's EA and Hasbro.

To me, it's more than just an oddity; it's a statement that Wall Street totally undervalues the studios and overvalues everything else. However, the judgment's been made: Hasbro (HAS) and Electronic Arts (EA) are the investible Disney stories ... at least for now."

-- Jim Cramer, Get Exposed to Disney Without Owning the Stock (May 11, 2016)

The Bottom Line

Disney repurchased about 25 million of its shares during the latest quarter, which helped generate a better EPS gain than the meager 2% increase in net income would have otherwise created.

However, these buybacks took Disney's share count down about 20% from its peak levels even though the firm has used stock as currency in a number of past acquisitions (including Pixar).
And after deducting minority interest in ESPN's cash flow, Disney now trades at about 11x twelve-month-trailing EBITD.

All told, I believe that last night's results fit into and complement my thesis of lower-than-expected EPS growth at Disney over the next five years.

Position: Short DIS

Hmmm.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Buy Buy Buy

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3974003-buy-disney-sell

http://washingtonnewswire.com/2016-05-11-traders-buy-walt-disney-co-dis-on-weakness-after-earnings-miss/

http://www.risersandfallers.com/2016/05/11/shares-of-the-walt-disney-company-nysedis-rated-as-buy-by-analysts-at-topeka-capital-markets/

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13568430/1/disney-is-a-buy-here-s-why.html

[Silkk the Shaka]

You guys are all missing Heisenberg's point. Disney is not dead, it will likely even continue to grow. But at a P/E of ~18, that's already priced in. What's the upside catalyst? How can it realistically outperform? You might clip a dividend + some modest price appreciation and not technically lose money, but there's an opportunity cost to parking your $ there. You could achieve virtually the same thing by buying a 10-year DIS bond, yield ~2.5% per year, and know with near certainty you'll get your principal back if you hold to maturity. But if it's an equity risk/return profile you want, you're likely better off throwing it in an index fund and waiting 10 years.

[MU82]

You guys are all missing Heisenberg's point. Disney is not dead, it will likely even continue to grow. But at a P/E of ~18, that's already priced in. What's the upside catalyst? How can it realistically outperform? You might clip a dividend + some modest price appreciation and not technically lose money, but there's an opportunity cost to parking your $ there. You could achieve virtually the same thing by buying a 10-year DIS bond, yield ~2.5% per year, and know with near certainty you'll get your principal back if you hold to maturity. But if it's an equity risk/return profile you want, you're likely better off throwing it in an index fund and waiting 10 years.

I don't own DIS, so I guess I do get it.

It's just Heisy's way of expressing his opinion that always cracks me up.

[Herman Cain]

The Mouse No Longer Roars, But It Might Purr Soon
FEB 10, 2016 | 2:54 PM EST
Stock quotes in this article:  DIS

I placed Disney (DIS) on my Best Ideas List as a short last Nov. 27 at $116.25.

I remain short Disney despite its recent fall to $89 a share, but I am down to tag ends.

Pricing and margin challenges in its theme parks, continued cord-cutting and peak sports viewership represent the principle threats I see, which are likely to reduce the company's secular earnings-per-share growth rate from more than 20% annually over the last five years  to less than 10% over the next five years.

My price target remains at about $80, which would be 13x forward EPS. Given the slowdown in projected growth, a price/earnings to growth (PEG) ratio of 1.3x seems reasonable.

Here are some of my thoughts on DIS:
•   The Bear Case for Disney 
•   The Bear Case (Redux) -- Taking a Look at Theme Parks
•   Peak Sports VIewership 
•   Apple, DIsney and "The Big Short"
•   BTIG's Greenfield Chimes In

The positive at Disney was, not surprisingly, the "Star Wars" contribution, which was an important factor in the addition of almost $1 billion in cash flow during the quarter.

Debt to cash flow is now below 1x, which represents, in theory, an ability to retire stock through more leverage. I wouldn't be surprised to see a more aggressive buyback program as CEO Bob Iger studied this strategy at CCB under Tom Murphy.
Share count is already down by nearly 20% from peak levels; DIS has spent about $3.7 billion in buying stock over the last four to five months, even though stock was used as currency in a number of acquisitions, including Pixar.

Interestingly, there was a large (22%) rise in accounts receivables (are theatres slow payers?). This represents a gain of almost $2.2 billion, which will be finding its way onto the balance sheet in the year ahead. The company also benefited from a $332 million gain from an investment in "Vice," which was taken below the line and not included in operating income.

In other words, the quarter was conservatively stated.

Bottom line:

DIsney has been a terrific short. Though I have covered most of this short, I would not yet buy the shares.
DIS currently is trading at about 9.5x trailing 12-month EBITD, so the shares are starting to get cheaper given its core brand franchise, free cash flow and high level of overall profitability.

I am close to covering the balance of my short in Disney. It seems like $75 to $80 is a good buy entry point.

Position: Short DIS small
 
Douglas A. Kass
Seabreeze Partners Management Inc.

I know Doug well . He will eventually " ring the register" on the short and keep a close eye on it with the intention of going back in on the long side. At some point the market will severely discount the value of the studio and it will be a reentry point.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You guys are all missing Heisenberg's point. Disney is not dead, it will likely even continue to grow. But at a P/E of ~18, that's already priced in. What's the upside catalyst? How can it realistically outperform? You might clip a dividend + some modest price appreciation and not technically lose money, but there's an opportunity cost to parking your $ there. You could achieve virtually the same thing by buying a 10-year DIS bond, yield ~2.5% per year, and know with near certainty you'll get your principal back if you hold to maturity. But if it's an equity risk/return profile you want, you're likely better off throwing it in an index fund and waiting 10 years.

Most of my DIS is at $28 to $32, so I'm not complaining.   The point I have trouble with is the claim it won't be above $100....no one knows.  It might be, it might not be.  I enjoy owning great companies, call me old fashioned.  Doesn't mean all my money is in companies like that, but no doubt some of my anchor investments are in companies that should be alive and well long after I'm gone.

[MU82]

Most of my DIS is at $28 to $32, so I'm not complaining.   The point I have trouble with is the claim it won't be above $100....no one knows.  It might be, it might not be.  I enjoy owning great companies, call me old fashioned.  Doesn't mean all my money is in companies like that, but no doubt some of my anchor investments are in companies that should be alive and well long after I'm gone.

Excellent investing attitude, Chicos. And you're so right about "no one knows."

I laugh when people state definitively that company XYZ "will be at $300 next year" or "will be stuck under $100 for years."

If I was such an expert that I knew this kind of stuff for sure, I'd be living on my personal desert island somewhere. I sure as hell wouldn't be wasting my time bragging about my investing acumen on a fan Web site!

[Tugg Speedman]

It's getting worse

ESPN Still Bleeding Subs As 1.2mm People Ditch Service In Past 2 Months Alone
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-30/espn-still-bleeding-subs-12mm-people-ditch-service-past-2-months-alone

Last month we noted that ESPN lost 621,000 subscribers in the month of the October (see "ESPN Loses A Record 621,000 Subscribers In One Month").  Unfortunately, the sports media powerhouse can't seem to make the bleeding stop as evidenced by another 555,000 subscriber losses this month as reported by Nielsen.  For those keeping track, that's roughly 1.2mm in sub losses in just two months, which, at $7 of revenue per sub, represents about $100mm of lost annual revenue for ESPN's parent company, Disney.

Obviously this is not welcome news for a company that is locked in to $7.3 billion in sports content deals or roughly 70% more than the second highest network, NBC.

[brandx]

It's getting worse

ESPN Still Bleeding Subs As 1.2mm People Ditch Service In Past 2 Months Alone
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-30/espn-still-bleeding-subs-12mm-people-ditch-service-past-2-months-alone

Last month we noted that ESPN lost 621,000 subscribers in the month of the October (see "ESPN Loses A Record 621,000 Subscribers In One Month").  Unfortunately, the sports media powerhouse can't seem to make the bleeding stop as evidenced by another 555,000 subscriber losses this month as reported by Nielsen.  For those keeping track, that's roughly 1.2mm in sub losses in just two months, which, at $7 of revenue per sub, represents about $100mm of lost annual revenue for ESPN's parent company, Disney.

Obviously this is not welcome news for a company that is locked in to $7.3 billion in sports content deals or roughly 70% more than the second highest network, NBC.

My issue with your posts is that you are making this an ESPN "issue". People are not ditching cable because of ESPN. They are doing it because cable is doing a continually worsening job of meeting people's needs. Time Warner, for one, only gives a deal or discounts when you include their phone service - whether you want it or not.

Plus, there are too many options for people like me who basically watch only Sports and News on live TV. There are millions of us and the cable industry's only reply is "too bad".

Yes - ESPN is losing subscribers. But the people they are losing are people who are sick of cable - not people sick of ESPN.

[Tugg Speedman]

My issue with your posts is that you are making this an ESPN "issue". People are not ditching cable because of ESPN. They are doing it because cable is doing a continually worsening job of meeting people's needs. Time Warner, for one, only gives a deal or discounts when you include their phone service - whether you want it or not.

Plus, there are too many options for people like me who basically watch only Sports and News on live TV. There are millions of us and the cable industry's only reply is "too bad".

Yes - ESPN is losing subscribers. But the people they are losing are people who are sick of cable - not people sick of ESPN.

The cable/Satellite companies thought they had everyone by the short-hairs because live sports would keep everyone buying the product.  And far and away leading the live sports argument was ESPN.

Now that the sports bubble has popped, leading the rush away from cable/Satellite is the loss of ESPN subscribers.  So I would argue you have it backwards.  The popping of the sports bubble is accelerating the rush away from cable/Satellite.  Not the rush away from cable/Satellite is causing ESPN to lose subscribers.

And ESPN is going to be the biggest loser of the sports bubble popping, led be their $7.3 billion broadcasting rights they have committed too.  If this loss rate continues they are going to be in a world of hurt.

[rocket surgeon]

My issue with your posts is that you are making this an ESPN "issue". People are not ditching cable because of ESPN. They are doing it because cable is doing a continually worsening job of meeting people's needs. Time Warner, for one, only gives a deal or discounts when you include their phone service - whether you want it or not.

Plus, there are too many options for people like me who basically watch only Sports and News on live TV. There are millions of us and the cable industry's only reply is "too bad".

Yes - ESPN is losing subscribers. But the people they are losing are people who are sick of cable - not people sick of ESPN.

no disrespect here jesse as i usually agree with your stuff, but brands has an excellent point here from a consumer point of view. cable companies are, and i don't know how, quietly(or not) becoming little monopolies.  they have become the bullies of tv.  they think they have a take it or leave it attitude because they think they have the best.  i have noticed the huge improvement in customer service at time warner/spectrum, but they ain't cheap.  they try to lump chit together to make it appear that you are getting a great deal.  then you go to look over your bill and say, i don't need this, this and...but tw/spectrum will tell you that if you eliminate that, your $$ will actually go up.  then they try to sell you a faster internet and you walk away feeling like you just got poked in the exit only region. yes, some of the political crap espn tries to integrate into their product bothers me, but overall, i still love their SPORTS and their 30 for 30's. 
   as for losing subscribers,  how do the ratings people take in to account all the sports bars, the buffalo wild wings, casinos, et. al that carry the espn product?  the numbers being revealed may show some drops, but i doubt they are as drastic as they are reported to be.  direct tv is having some pretty dramatic success with their sunday NFL ticket.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2016/11/29/nfl-sunday-ticket-tv-expands-its-game/94166930/
 
  bottom line, people want options.  i have tw/spectrum in wisconsin and direct tv in Az.  so far, direct seems to be LESS annoying and more malleable   

[rocket surgeon]

  what about IPTV protocols-not being accounted for in their ratings analysis does not allow for an accurate representation.  i'm not trying wave a big espn banner here, but there are "things" that need to be acknowledged.  does nielson have a $$ bias?  follow the money...are people shorting this thing while this news is coming out and then when they have what they want, the news changes, they've bought back in before many others who aren't privy to the "inside" story and it's "show me the money".  the "little people" are once again left with their trousers down

[brandx]

Now that the sports bubble has popped, leading the rush away from cable/Satellite is the loss of ESPN subscribers.  So I would argue you have it backwards.  The popping of the sports bubble is accelerating the rush away from cable/Satellite.  Not the rush away from cable/Satellite is causing ESPN to lose subscribers.

And ESPN is going to be the biggest loser of the sports bubble popping, led be their $7.3 billion broadcasting rights they have committed too.  If this loss rate continues they are going to be in a world of hurt.

People are not ditching $150 - $200 cable bills over a few dollars that ESPN commands. They are ditching it because of the $150 - $200 that appears on their bill each month. Add in the fact that people under 35 do not watch TV in the traditional way.

Just as technology forced changes on the way we consumed music, technology is forcing changes in the way we consume sports.

The sports bubble has not popped. It is just in the process of transforming into a new shape.

Now, ESPN could very well be the victim of these economics, but they aren't the reason for the change.

[mu03eng]

The cable/Satellite companies thought they had everyone by the short-hairs because live sports would keep everyone buying the product.  And far and away leading the live sports argument was ESPN.

Now that the sports bubble has popped, leading the rush away from cable/Satellite is the loss of ESPN subscribers.  So I would argue you have it backwards.  The popping of the sports bubble is accelerating the rush away from cable/Satellite.  Not the rush away from cable/Satellite is causing ESPN to lose subscribers.

And ESPN is going to be the biggest loser of the sports bubble popping, led be their $7.3 billion broadcasting rights they have committed too.  If this loss rate continues they are going to be in a world of hurt.

I think Brand is mostly correct, but it's statistically difficult to prove. Fox Sports is also losing subscribers, but so are all the providers. I'm willing to bet if you could assess the subscriber loss rate for the TV provider industry that it would be the same or greater than that of E$PN specifically and sports content generally.

For your statement to be correct, E$PN would have to be losing viewers at a faster rate than the providers, which would mean that some significant amount of TV viewers were ditching their sports programming but staying with cable generally. That doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

Now where I think Brand doesn't quite have it correct is that there is also a shift in viewing habits for sports watchers that is also directly impacting E$PN. With the proliferation of methodologies to consume highlights, reviews, etc people just aren't tuning in for things like SportsCenter anymore. People are consuming things in quick chunks and on demand like never before so E$PN is being impacted on the ad revenue side as well that has nothing to do with anger at the cable company.

E$PN's problem really is they made a big bet that the paradigm wasn't changing as rapid as it actually is. They made content acquisitions at pricing that was easily sustainable if subscribers stayed flat or increased slight, but that isn't happening. I really do think in the next two years someone in the sports content market is going to make a drastic break from the norm to try and deliver content outside the monopoly of the cable providers. The only reason that hasn't happened yet is that almost all of the cable providers are also the data providers which any non-cable delivery mechanism would have to depend on.

Not making it political, but it'll be interesting if a Trump presidency strengthens the trend toward cable and internet monopoly or weakens it. If you broke the infrastructure providers from the content providers, you'd see a very rapid change in the industry....creative destruction at it's finest.

[jesmu84]

I think Brand is mostly correct, but it's statistically difficult to prove. Fox Sports is also losing subscribers, but so are all the providers. I'm willing to bet if you could assess the subscriber loss rate for the TV provider industry that it would be the same or greater than that of E$PN specifically and sports content generally.

For your statement to be correct, E$PN would have to be losing viewers at a faster rate than the providers, which would mean that some significant amount of TV viewers were ditching their sports programming but staying with cable generally. That doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

Now where I think Brand doesn't quite have it correct is that there is also a shift in viewing habits for sports watchers that is also directly impacting E$PN. With the proliferation of methodologies to consume highlights, reviews, etc people just aren't tuning in for things like SportsCenter anymore. People are consuming things in quick chunks and on demand like never before so E$PN is being impacted on the ad revenue side as well that has nothing to do with anger at the cable company.

E$PN's problem really is they made a big bet that the paradigm wasn't changing as rapid as it actually is. They made content acquisitions at pricing that was easily sustrightble if subscribers stayed flat or increased slight, but that isn't happening. I really do think in the next two years someone in the sports content market is going to make a drastic break from the norm to try and deliver content outside the monopoly of the cable providers. The only reason that hasn't happened yet is that almost all of the cable providers are also the data providers which any non-cable delivery mechanism would have to depend on.

Not making it political, but it'll be interesting if a Trump presidency strengthens the trend toward cable and internet monopoly or weakens it. If you broke the infrastructure providers from the content providers, you'd see a very rapid change in the industry....creative destruction at it's finest.

This is such a unnatural carnal knowledgeing joke.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

People are not ditching $150 - $200 cable bills over a few dollars that ESPN commands. They are ditching it because of the $150 - $200 that appears on their bill each month. Add in the fact that people under 35 do not watch TV in the traditional way.

Just as technology forced changes on the way we consumed music, technology is forcing changes in the way we consume sports.

The sports bubble has not popped. It is just in the process of transforming into a new shape.

Now, ESPN could very well be the victim of these economics, but they aren't the reason for the change.

I posted this recently.  My Frontier U-Verse deal expired and went up to $210/month for TV, phone & internet.  They would not reduce or cut me a deal, so I switched to Optimum Cable for $150/month for all 3 services.  $150/mo still does feel like way too much.

[mu03eng]

This is such a unnatural carnal knowledgeing joke.

That is correct. Not sure what the answer is, short of turning the internet into a utility but my reaction to that is:

[jesmu84]

That is correct. Not sure what the answer is, short of turning the internet into a utility but my reaction to that is:

I understand your feeling. But I'm not so sure. My water works fine. So does my electricity. Would it really be awful to have city centers/utility companies lay cable/fiber for data and then run them as a utility?

[GGGG]

Chattanooga, TN offers free public wifi to anyone.  My guess is that as this technology becomes cheaper, and the services is as dependable as as fast as in-home wifi, that is the direction you could see municipalities head.  Or maybe that's just a pipe dream.

[mu03eng]

I understand your feeling. But I'm not so sure. My water works fine. So does my electricity. Would it really be awful to have city centers/utility companies lay cable/fiber for data and then run them as a utility?

Not being glib, but do you understand your electrical bill, what the revenue actually goes to and how horrifically out of date the electrical grid is? Yes you get energy and it's not super expensive but that's because they are living off old technology that is already paid for.

I could see some sort of public-private consortium but dear lord please not a full public internet utility. Innovation would die

[Benny B]

Not being glib, but do you understand your electrical bill, what the revenue actually goes to and how horrifically out of date the electrical grid is? Yes you get energy and it's not super expensive but that's because they are living off old technology that is already paid for.

I could see some sort of public-private consortium but dear lord please not a full public internet utility. Innovation would die

Then what are all these "smart grid" commercials I'm seeing on the ol' Philco?

[brandx]

It's getting worse

ESPN Still Bleeding Subs As 1.2mm People Ditch Service In Past 2 Months Alone
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-30/espn-still-bleeding-subs-12mm-people-ditch-service-past-2-months-alone

Last month we noted that ESPN lost 621,000 subscribers in the month of the October (see "ESPN Loses A Record 621,000 Subscribers In One Month").  Unfortunately, the sports media powerhouse can't seem to make the bleeding stop as evidenced by another 555,000 subscriber losses this month as reported by Nielsen. 

Besides my other disagreements with your points here, this is my biggest disagreement.

You are listing how many subscribers ESPN has lost. In fact, we don't really know. However, we do know it is significantly less than the numbers given in your article.

Nielsen does not yet have a decent method to measure the entire universe of video viewing, including time-shifting, mobile video audiences, and streaming services. They are not taking into account new services that provide ESPN like Sling and vue.

They are trying to figure out how to get accurate readings on this, but they are not there yet.

[Tugg Speedman]

The breakup of the old Big East, which was purely driven by money, was the exact top of the sports bubble.

[brandx]

The breakup of the old Big East, which was purely driven by money, was the exact top of the sports bubble.

Not sure it was the "exact top", but it was surely an indicator.

It was the moment college sports ceased being about sports at all and became all about dollars. ADs realized that with unpaid employees driving their businesses, they needed a helmet if they were gonna stand under the money tree.

[GGGG]

Not sure it was the "exact top", but it was surely an indicator.

It was the moment college sports ceased being about sports at all and became all about dollars. ADs realized that with unpaid employees driving their businesses, they needed a helmet if they were gonna stand under the money tree.

Major college sports has been mostly about money for decades now.