šŸˆ SEC Scheduling with the arrival of Texas and Oklahoma. Divisions? Pods? How many games?

OldPlayer said:
By moving games to streaming platforms there will be fewer viewers, and as a result less revenue
Click to expand...
Thing is, streaming is the future. Sports viewership is declining precisely because it continue to hold to the old cable model and refuses to move into the modern day. Cable costs more and more due to sports, and cutting the cord is becoming more popular. As that happens, more cordcutter live TV services are becoming places where there are no sports (andd in many cases people are moving to illegal IPTV services that provide no Nielsen info or money to the pockets of the channels). That puts more pressure on the sports providers since their current model is based on the masses paying a little each even if they don't watch rather than the people who do watch paying for the sports directly.

OldPlayer said:
Right now a Alabama-Vanderbilt game can and will be viewed by people in every market and in bars and restaurants because itā€™s on.
Click to expand...
They pay extra to show it in those bars or risk losing everything to a lawsuit. Bars will show what the patrons are interested in and something like every NCAA game on ESPN+ would possibly bring in more money direct to ESPN than counting on the cable money. The reason they don't do it now is because ESPN+ does not include the stuff on the live ESPN Networks if you aren't already subscribed to cable that carries ESPN. So ESPN+ right now is an extra cost. I doubt ESPN live networks all die, but I can tell you that they will be cutting back at some point if they don't move to a more streaming approach. I could see ESPN going more regional maybe but I feel the move to more streaming is coming. And think about it.

You are looking at it from an Alabama fan perspective, where all of your games except maybe one are on SECN, ESPN, CBS, etc. The vast majority of NCAA football fans would already benefit from ESPN+ as their team is rarely on the big networks but might already be on ESPN+. Streaming is the savior of sports broadcasting in the long run.
 
rocknthefreeworld said:
Thing is, streaming is the future. Sports viewership is declining precisely because it continue to hold to the old cable model and refuses to move into the modern day. Cable costs more and more due to sports, and cutting the cord is becoming more popular. As that happens, more cordcutter live TV services are becoming places where there are no sports (andd in many cases people are moving to illegal IPTV services that provide no Nielsen info or money to the pockets of the channels). That puts more pressure on the sports providers since their current model is based on the masses paying a little each even if they don't watch rather than the people who do watch paying for the sports directly.


They pay extra to show it in those bars or risk losing everything to a lawsuit. Bars will show what the patrons are interested in and something like every NCAA game on ESPN+ would possibly bring in more money direct to ESPN than counting on the cable money. The reason they don't do it now is because ESPN+ does not include the stuff on the live ESPN Networks if you aren't already subscribed to cable that carries ESPN. So ESPN+ right now is an extra cost. I doubt ESPN live networks all die, but I can tell you that they will be cutting back at some point if they don't move to a more streaming approach. I could see ESPN going more regional maybe but I feel the move to more streaming is coming. And think about it.

You are looking at it from an Alabama fan perspective, where all of your games except maybe one are on SECN, ESPN, CBS, etc. The vast majority of NCAA football fans would already benefit from ESPN+ as their team is rarely on the big networks but might already be on ESPN+. Streaming is the savior of sports broadcasting in the long run.
Click to expand...

I've talked about it here before, now I just gottalearn the technology and cut the cord.
 
rocknthefreeworld said:
Thing is, streaming is the future. Sports viewership is declining precisely because it continue to hold to the old cable model and refuses to move into the modern day. Cable costs more and more due to sports, and cutting the cord is becoming more popular. As that happens, more cordcutter live TV services are becoming places where there are no sports (andd in many cases people are moving to illegal IPTV services that provide no Nielsen info or money to the pockets of the channels). That puts more pressure on the sports providers since their current model is based on the masses paying a little each even if they don't watch rather than the people who do watch paying for the sports directly.


They pay extra to show it in those bars or risk losing everything to a lawsuit. Bars will show what the patrons are interested in and something like every NCAA game on ESPN+ would possibly bring in more money direct to ESPN than counting on the cable money. The reason they don't do it now is because ESPN+ does not include the stuff on the live ESPN Networks if you aren't already subscribed to cable that carries ESPN. So ESPN+ right now is an extra cost. I doubt ESPN live networks all die, but I can tell you that they will be cutting back at some point if they don't move to a more streaming approach. I could see ESPN going more regional maybe but I feel the move to more streaming is coming. And think about it.

You are looking at it from an Alabama fan perspective, where all of your games except maybe one are on SECN, ESPN, CBS, etc. The vast majority of NCAA football fans would already benefit from ESPN+ as their team is rarely on the big networks but might already be on ESPN+. Streaming is the savior of sports broadcasting in the long run.
Click to expand...
We've actually thought about going back to cable because it's cheaper than multiple streaming services.
 
rocknthefreeworld said:
Thing is, streaming is the future. Sports viewership is declining precisely because it continue to hold to the old cable model and refuses to move into the modern day. Cable costs more and more due to sports, and cutting the cord is becoming more popular. As that happens, more cordcutter live TV services are becoming places where there are no sports (andd in many cases people are moving to illegal IPTV services that provide no Nielsen info or money to the pockets of the channels). That puts more pressure on the sports providers since their current model is based on the masses paying a little each even if they don't watch rather than the people who do watch paying for the sports directly.


They pay extra to show it in those bars or risk losing everything to a lawsuit. Bars will show what the patrons are interested in and something like every NCAA game on ESPN+ would possibly bring in more money direct to ESPN than counting on the cable money. The reason they don't do it now is because ESPN+ does not include the stuff on the live ESPN Networks if you aren't already subscribed to cable that carries ESPN. So ESPN+ right now is an extra cost. I doubt ESPN live networks all die, but I can tell you that they will be cutting back at some point if they don't move to a more streaming approach. I could see ESPN going more regional maybe but I feel the move to more streaming is coming. And think about it.

You are looking at it from an Alabama fan perspective, where all of your games except maybe one are on SECN, ESPN, CBS, etc. The vast majority of NCAA football fans would already benefit from ESPN+ as their team is rarely on the big networks but might already be on ESPN+. Streaming is the savior of sports broadcasting in the long run.
Click to expand...
Streaming services are losing money. Lots of money.

ā€Disney's streaming efforts, which include Hulu and ESPN+, are losing money ā€” $1.1 billion during the most recent quarter ā€” and investors have become more eager to see returns. Disney has promised investors that Disney+ will be profitable by the end of fiscal 2024. Cue last week's layoff announcement: some of the most severe in the companyā€™s history and part of a broader effort to rustle up $5.5 billion in savings, including $3 billion in content costs.ā€

To become profitable they will need to convince a lot of people to cut their cords. In many cases this will require TV viewers to upgrade their TVs ($$$) to support HDMI. With the current economy and inflation, thatā€™s a significant hill to climb. The media companies are hoping that enough people will drop cable - eliminating the fees media must pay the cable/satellite companies to be included on their service - and choose their media package. With the aging of the population, it will be difficult to package Disney with ESPN offerings and get positive results (the US population age 65+ is currently about 16.9% and will increase to 22% by 2050).

Iā€™m not looking at it as an Alabama fan. Iā€™m looking at the bigger picture. I think youā€™re looking at it from an SEC viewpoint and are forgetting about the ACC, Big10, Big XII, Pac12, and a host of other conferences.
 
BamaFan334 said:
That's the main reason I haven't, because I really wondering if it's worth the hassle. What do you suggest to lessen your cable bill from $100 a month?
Click to expand...
What is your real cable bill just for TV? Not the advertised amount but the amount with all the fees and taxes? YouTubeTV is $64.99 a month. Period. No monthly cost for each box, or extra for DVR. No taxes or extra fees. Take that and add it to your internet cost and that is your overall cost for YTTV. Now, there are some caveats. If you need 4K or more than 3 TV watching at a time you have to pay for the add on. If you have to have Bally or another RSN then you are out of luck (or you have to go to Fubo or DirecTV Stream which is really good but cable priced for sure).

I can tell you that being a sports fan means cutting the cord will cost similar to cable. You may even lose some things (RSN for example). But you gain freedom for it. I can put my TV wherever there is power. No need to worry about running cable (or paying someone to do it). I can watch a game or show anywhere I have cell service on my phone. And, the big one, if I decide to leave a service I can cancel online usually without having to speak to anyone and pick up another same day. I can even try out 2-3 services at once if I want to and figure out which is best for me.

Most folks rotate services. Like, if you are a big baseball fan you might run Fubo for baseball season then swap to Philo for the offseason. Or maybe you like NFl and College football only so you run YTTV August-January then drop to Philo for the rest of the year.

I actually carry way more services than I should. Usually I hit deals (like Verizon having a deal for NFL+ including a year of the highest Netflix plan for only $25 for just a few days around Christmas) or they come with another service (Disney+ package through Verizon again) but some I just pay for monthly. So I pay a lot more than most and I have no complaints. Anything they don't have on a service then I probably have sailed the 7 seas and have stored on my Jellyfin server for the family to watch. Cost means little to me, convenience is more important.
 
OldPlayer said:
Streaming services are losing money. Lots of money.
Click to expand...
There is an issue with framing it that way. Currently on-demand style streaming is losing money as they are all start-ups (yes, Disney+ is basically a startup since they had no streaming service before) and are less than 3-4 years old in most cases. They are all trying to catch Netflix. Some of those will fail and their media go back to Netflix or other places in the end.

Live TV streamers are the ones growing highly now. Hulu+Live and YouTubeTV account for around 10 million subscribers and growing. Meanwhile traditional cable is down 21 million subs since 2016.

The aging of the population will increase the speed at which cord cutting happens. Of the folks I know 70 and older right now, 3/4ths are on YouTubeTV or Hulu+Live. Two of the others have ditched cable completely and just use their antenna. A la carte was the big idea of the 90's and it is coming, but not the way people want it. When you drop it down to people in their 50's like me, I know nobody who still has traditional cable. They are the future old folks.

The one thing to remember is that sports are going to either adapt to less money overall or die. That includes every single one we love. The days of forcing all 70 million cable subscribers to pay a hidden $10 a month for ESPN are getting to an end. Yes, that is the real number ESPN charges on average per subscriber along with requiring it to be on the lowest cable level possible to get as many as possible to pay it. People are leaving cable over that extra cost that they have no say in. ESPN lost 8 million subscribers in 2021. Meanwhile, ESPN+ gained close to 7 million that same year.
 
Maybe not being able to have internet at house is a good thing...
Take my directv and a receiver in rv....and go...
And have directv on my phone...( if i ever knew how to use)....
Have my 15 channels i or ms50+ watches...and ignore the other 85...
 
rocknthefreeworld said:
But, if you are carrying cable, are you also carrying those services? If so, then their price can't be included in your overall cost. If not, then why would you carry them with a service like YouTube TV or Hulu+Live that has most every channel?
Click to expand...
For us, it's one or the other. We have a finite budget for "TV" (using the term rather loosely here), so we look to get the most bang for our buck. While I haven't looked at it closely yet, we may trend back toward cable in the future.

For sports, I find a way to watch for free, or I don't watch.
 
TerryP said:
Upgrade to HDMI? TV's are well into the second iteration of HDMI.
Click to expand...
Lower income households aren't big buyers of expensive TVs. HDMI has been included on TVs for years, but lower to mid income households can't afford to buy multiple TVs with HDMI included. Many of these lower income households don't have WIFI. It's not that it isn't available, it's an added expense that isn't on the top of their list.
 
OldPlayer said:
Lower income households aren't big buyers of expensive TVs. HDMI has been included on TVs for years, but lower to mid income households can't afford to buy multiple TVs with HDMI included. Many of these lower income households don't have WIFI. It's not that it isn't available, it's an added expense that isn't on the top of their list.
Click to expand...
There isn't a direct relationship between HDMI capability and expensive TV's. It took all of five seconds for me to find a 32" TV, with multiple HDMI ports, for $125ā€”SmartCast, Voice command, Apple Air options, and many other options included.

Having the Internet in your home isn't something that you can link with HDMI capability on the TV. From the outdated DVD player to your least expensive gaming consoles: HDMI connectivity. It's as common as having a smart phone: which happens to be another platform for streaming.

Sure, you can buy an expensive TV today. But buying a TV with HDMI capability does not have to be an expensive choice.

Coincidentally enough, the guy who is in charge of maintenance for Charleston County's Section Eight Housing Department lives just around the block. He'll be out at the bus stop with his kids in about 45 minutes. I'll walk out and ask his opinion here...wondering how many are in that housing and also have "expensive TV's." I'm guessing less than 10% are without.
 
50+yeartidefan said:
Maybe not being able to have internet at house is a good thing...
Take my directv and a receiver in rv....and go...
And have directv on my phone...( if i ever knew how to use)....
Have my 15 channels i or ms50+ watches...and ignore the other 85...
Click to expand...
The thing is, you do have the Internet at your house. You just aren't using the technology ... which is not uncommon, mind you.

Last month marked the beginning of the sixth year you've been here at RTB. (It's a notification I get, but spare you guys those details.) Have you purchased a new TV in that time span?
 
OldPlayer said:
Lower income households aren't big buyers of expensive TVs. HDMI has been included on TVs for years, but lower to mid income households can't afford to buy multiple TVs with HDMI included. Many of these lower income households don't have WIFI. It's not that it isn't available, it's an added expense that isn't on the top of their list.
Click to expand...

You ever seen a Best Buy, Walmart, or Target on Black Friday? I think you're mistaken about low income buying expensive TV's.
 
Coincidentally, Nielsen releases its numbers for January ...

Streaming up 31% year over year.
Broadcast saw a 2% increase (NFL.)
Cable up 22% (credit to "sports surge.")
image-3.png
 

Similar threads

S
šŸ“” SEC Daily: Big Ten Coach (Indiana's Cignetti) Fires Shot at SEC Schedule
Replies
7
Views
817
rick4bama
rick4bama
Brandon Van de Graaff
šŸˆ For fun, which SEC game(s) this week has the highest and lowest point total from these games...
Replies
6
Views
255
24and7
24and7
TerryP
šŸ€ I love the way the SEC schedules basketball on Saturday's. I still wish they'd adopt the B1G's scheduling philosophy.
Replies
0
Views
99
TerryP
TerryP
RTB X Bot
āš¾ šŸ„Ž Alabamaā€™s 2026 schedule includes trips to Atlanta and Tallahassee and an SEC slate that could be very favorable for the Crimson Tide.
Replies
0
Views
272
RTB X Bot
RTB X Bot
S
šŸ“” ACC eyes 10 Power 4 games in new schedule format - ESPN
    • Like
Replies
0
Views
2K
SEC Sports
S
Back
Top Bottom