ESPN Loses Another 1.5 Million Subscribers

VideoEagle · April 29, 2017

47 minutes ago, TreeFiddy said:

Resist. There is help out there.

1-800-LOW-T

I've found that doing things and watching shows my wife enjoys make life better and more fun. Your experience might vary.

Wag Tag · April 29, 2017

Again watching the draft coverage is an example of how bad they suck! It is like 4 talking heads trying to come up with a re quotable quote! It ain't going to happen. Remember the first for letters of ANALyst!

MeanGreenTexan · April 29, 2017

6 hours ago, VideoEagle said:

I've found that doing things and watching shows my wife enjoys make life better and more fun. Your experience might vary.

I think I've seen every single episode of "Fixer-Upper" because of this.

BTG_Fan1 · April 30, 2017

On 6/1/2016 at 9:46 AM, UNTFan23 said:

Even live TV has lag due to the time it takes for the images captured by the cameras make it to your TV. There is no way Playstation Vue has absolutely no lag. In fact many "live" TV shows have a minimum 7 second "buffer" to allow cuss words and whatnot to be censored out for the sake of our virgin American eyes and ears.

Lag <> Buffering.

Apparently NFL Network didn't have a deal or the person messed up when that kid from UCLA that the Falcons picked in Rd1 dropped the F bomb lol.

On 6/2/2016 at 11:33 AM, ColoradoEagle said:

It would be amazing if they could negotiate something with the teams to get local games on MLB.tv. I've not seen more than a couple innings this season due to that, and the Rangers yanking all OTA broadcasts a couple years ago.

You can use a VPN to get around this or watch the games on Fox Sports Go, which then you can watch the Rangers game.

On 4/26/2017 at 2:07 PM, MeanGreenTexan said:

I don't think the Big12 will blow up unless Oklahoma decides to move before Texas is ready.
Didn't UT sign the LHN deal back in 2010 for $300mil over 20 years?
Why leave a rather weak conference, one that give you a much better shot at a championship than any other "P5", when you're getting $15mil/yr of TV money anyway? Texas is strong enough to float just about any conference by itself.

Isn't OSU and OU tied together because of something that the state of OK passed?

The benefits as well that UT and OU have over the other schools is the % that they get from TV deal the Big12 has. That is why Neb/Colo/AM/Mizzo left. Because UT and OU were getting bigger % of the pot instead of doing all schools get the same.

Arkstfan · May 3, 2017

And it gets uglier. First three months of 2017 another 762,000 homes dropped pay television.

https://news.fastcompany.com/cord-cutting-spikes-fivefold-in-cable-tvs-worst-quarter-ever-4036578

Cerebus · May 3, 2017

47 minutes ago, Arkstfan said:

And it gets uglier. First three months of 2017 another 762,000 homes dropped pay television.

https://news.fastcompany.com/cord-cutting-spikes-fivefold-in-cable-tvs-worst-quarter-ever-4036578

My job has me interact with college age kids quite often. The vast majority of them don't pay for cable, most of them don't even own a TV, unless it is used for a gaming console. If they can't stream it or download it, they don't care. Most of them think cable is an overpriced scam and I don't see a large percentage of them ever becoming cable subscribers.

That is the real problem ESPN and cable have coming.

TreeFiddy · May 3, 2017

The cable companies should be reasonably ok selling internet access until the wireless companies figure out how to provide high speed wireless for the same amount or less than wired.

The content providers on the other hand, look like they are in for some pain. Especially those that are locked in to long term high $ contracts for rights fees. Looking at you ESPN.

NorthTexan95 · May 4, 2017

13 hours ago, TreeFiddy said:

The cable companies should be reasonably ok selling internet access until the wireless companies figure out how to provide high speed wireless for the same amount or less than wired.

The content providers on the other hand, look like they are in for some pain. Especially those that are locked in to long term high $ contracts for rights fees. Looking at you ESPN.

Cable companies may do better just concentrating on internet service and not paying for broadcast rights.

VideoEagle · May 4, 2017

2 hours ago, NorthTexan95 said:

Cable companies may do better just concentrating on internet service and not paying for broadcast rights.

The complication is cable companies and the program providers have become the same company!

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · May 10, 2017

http://www.investors.com/news/disney-reports-after-the-close-expect-sports-chatter-studio-hits/

The interesting this to me is that in past books and film about "the future," the media is always controlled by some central entity - either controlled by the government or giant media conglomerate.

However, "the future" is turning out to be decidedly different. People are rejecting centralized media, and instead picking and choosing what they want to digest. This vexed the political media class in 2016; and, I think it is now vexing the sports media folks.

Everyone has news and sports information that cater only to their own points or view, whims, and loyalties.

Perhaps that is why we are seeing what we are seeing out of young people, namely college students who fight violently - violently - against free speech: they are the first generation raised to simply ignore other points of view with the touch of a button or swipe of a screen.

It makes me agree all the more with the premise of Idiocracy as well - society getting dumber not more refined, even as technology advances.

Longhorn Network was/is a ratification of the Idiocracy problem: "I don't want to hear about sports in general, I just want to hear about Longhorn sports."

FoxNEWS: "I don't want to hear about news in general, I just want to hear about conservative views of the news."

CNBC/MSNBC: "I don't want to hear about news in general, I just want to hear about liberal views of the news."

The ESPN problems: "I don't want to see the Yankee-Red Sox as Game of the Week; I'm in Texas, show me the Rangers and tell me about the Rangers."

And, on and on it seems to be going.

UNT Five&Dime · May 10, 2017

7e75133e0e4017798a7a4e112c9f9bed.617x623x1.png

ColoradoEagle · May 10, 2017

3 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

http://www.investors.com/news/disney-reports-after-the-close-expect-sports-chatter-studio-hits/

The interesting this to me is that in past books and film about "the future," the media is always controlled by some central entity - either controlled by the government or giant media conglomerate.

However, "the future" is turning out to be decidedly different. People are rejecting centralized media, and instead picking and choosing what they want to digest. This vexed the political media class in 2016; and, I think it is now vexing the sports media folks.

Everyone has news and sports information that cater only to their own points or view, whims, and loyalties.

Perhaps that is why we are seeing what we are seeing out of young people, namely college students who fight violently - violently - against free speech: they are the first generation raised to simply ignore other points of view with the touch of a button or swipe of a screen.

It makes me agree all the more with the premise of Idiocracy as well - society getting dumber not more refined, even as technology advances.

Longhorn Network was/is a ratification of the Idiocracy problem: "I don't want to hear about sports in general, I just want to hear about Longhorn sports."

FoxNEWS: "I don't want to hear about news in general, I just want to hear about conservative views of the news."

CNBC/MSNBC: "I don't want to hear about news in general, I just want to hear about liberal views of the news."

The ESPN problems: "I don't want to see the Yankee-Red Sox as Game of the Week; I'm in Texas, show me the Rangers and tell me about the Rangers."

And, on and on it seems to be going.

Good points. I do prefer centralized media, though. I'd rather watch SportsCenter than Rangers Live. Not just because the Rangers are so adept at losing, but because there's only so much to be gleaned from more than a few minutes coverage of each game. If the Rangers are winning, ESPN, Fox Sports, etc will be talking about them.

The one thing about ESPN, though, is I am tired of them doubling down on 'marquee matchups'. There's only so much Yankees/Red Sox, Cubs/Cardinals, or Heat/Cavs that I can handle. They repeat the exact same matchups all the time. Just checked, and Sunday night baseball is yet another Yankees game. I'm genuinely shocked that the one after is Rangers/Tigers.

Arkstfan · May 10, 2017

4 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

http://www.investors.com/news/disney-reports-after-the-close-expect-sports-chatter-studio-hits/

The interesting this to me is that in past books and film about "the future," the media is always controlled by some central entity - either controlled by the government or giant media conglomerate.

However, "the future" is turning out to be decidedly different. People are rejecting centralized media, and instead picking and choosing what they want to digest. This vexed the political media class in 2016; and, I think it is now vexing the sports media folks.

Everyone has news and sports information that cater only to their own points or view, whims, and loyalties.

Perhaps that is why we are seeing what we are seeing out of young people, namely college students who fight violently - violently - against free speech: they are the first generation raised to simply ignore other points of view with the touch of a button or swipe of a screen.

It makes me agree all the more with the premise of Idiocracy as well - society getting dumber not more refined, even as technology advances.

Longhorn Network was/is a ratification of the Idiocracy problem: "I don't want to hear about sports in general, I just want to hear about Longhorn sports."

FoxNEWS: "I don't want to hear about news in general, I just want to hear about conservative views of the news."

CNBC/MSNBC: "I don't want to hear about news in general, I just want to hear about liberal views of the news."

The ESPN problems: "I don't want to see the Yankee-Red Sox as Game of the Week; I'm in Texas, show me the Rangers and tell me about the Rangers."

And, on and on it seems to be going.

Nice thoughts but it isn't true.

Time Warner, Disney, Comcast Universal, CBS, Fox, AT&T and Verizon produce and deliver nearly everything you watch. ATT, Comcast Universal, Verizon, and Time Warner sell most of the terrestrial and over-the-air internet in the country. They sell nearly all of the bundled TV packages watched.

The rights to broadcast essentially all sports of interest in the US belong to Disney, Comcast, Fox, CBS, and Time Warner both nationally and locally.

The host of local regional sports networks have mostly been bought up and now are owned by Fox and Comcast.

We used to see bowl games on the syndicated Mizlou Network and we watched SWC games on Raycom and later SEC games on Raycom in Arkansas and even for a bit got ACC on Raycom. Come July 2019 Raycom Sports plans to shut down because ESPN and Fox have bought up everything they used to show. CSS showed Sun Belt and SEC and shut down when ESPN bought up all of the SEC inventory. CSTV had the MWC and CUSA and got bought by CBS.

Everything consolidates. Sure we will have a flurry the next decade or so as Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc all try win the next land rush but there will be players gobbled up and others will fold, if TV doesn't pan out for Twitter they are going to go belly up because they are still burning cash. Hulu is co-owned by Fox, Time Warner, Comcast Universal, and Disney.

greenminer · May 11, 2017

22 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

http://www.investors.com/news/disney-reports-after-the-close-expect-sports-chatter-studio-hits/

The interesting this to me is that in past books and film about "the future," the media is always controlled by some central entity - either controlled by the government or giant media conglomerate.

However, "the future" is turning out to be decidedly different. People are rejecting centralized media, and instead picking and choosing what they want to digest. This vexed the political media class in 2016; and, I think it is now vexing the sports media folks.

Everyone has news and sports information that cater only to their own points or view, whims, and loyalties.

I think you'd be surprised how so few people/organizations control what we see/hear/read.

It seems to me the struggle for these larger corporations isn't finding an audience, it's finding a business model to monetize it.

Here's some perspective from the music/radio side of things. The political/Trump part doesn't come until the very end.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/how-the-telecommunications-act-of-1996-brought-us-donald-trump-5efac5751ee8

Quote

...in 1983, 50 companies controlled 90% of US media — that number is now 5 (Comcast, Walt Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, and National Amusements) with almost all of the consolidation occurring since the passage of the 1996 Act.

Edited May 11, 2017 by greenminer

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · May 11, 2017

4 hours ago, greenminer said:

I think you'd be surprised how so few people/organizations control what we see/hear/read.

It seems to me the struggle for these larger corporations isn't finding an audience, it's finding a business model to monetize it.

Here's some perspective from the music/radio side of things. The political/Trump part doesn't come until the very end.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/how-the-telecommunications-act-of-1996-brought-us-donald-trump-5efac5751ee8

This is a good piece; thank you for showing it to me. I agree with most of what he says. I spent my first three years in college as a Radio/TV major. This was 1987-1990. I was a real, record spinning, PSA reading, bulk cart erasing, tape-splicing DJ for the first two year, then Music Director my third year.

Between my second and third year of school, I made a demo tape and sent it to a couple of dozen radio stations around Texas and Oklahoma (strategically, where I had family living and, so, could live rent free for three months) in an effort to land a summer internship.

I remember getting a letter back from the top country music station in Tulsa at the time. Having family up there, I phoned them, gassed up the Celica, and headed north for the interview. When I got there, I was shocked at what I found.

Unlike our little campus radio station - and, many stations I'd seen locally - there was almost no one there. On site were the owner, who was there to interview me, and, a black guy, the engineer, sitting in a room of computer equipment. This was in the middle of the day at the top FM country music station in Tulsa.

I asked where the DJs were. The owner laughed. He said most came early in the morning, and did their "on-air" work for the 15 minutes breaks, top of the hour/regulatory, and ads. The engineer put the DJ's "on air" at their appropriate time ("it's 15 minutes past the hour, and you've just heard..."). Morning show was a national syndicate, with local cut ins for traffic...provided by a local outfit that served many stations.

The playlists were all computerized and made out days in advance, sometimes as far out as a week in advance. There were no albums, 45s, tapes, reel-to-reels. Nothing. During the day, the "DJs" doubled as sales force and were out cold calling local businesses.

This was the summer of 1988, just about in the heart of the Midwest - Tulsa, Oklahoma.

I was crushed. I turned down the internship offer and drove back to Texas. After serving my year as Music Director, I transferred to North Texas and switched majors.

----

The other part of the article that strikes me is the AM/FM talk. I remember my first Radio/TV class, Broadcasting (good name for an R/TV course if there ever was one), well. The professor, who was a local radio veteran, said that within 10 years (this was 1987, so he meant sometime before 1997) there would be no more AM or FM and everything would be on one universal band.

AM stations, he preached, were unprofitable, laden with outdated technology, and, therefore, soon to be going out of business anyway.

And now for the political part that ties is all together...the professor had no idea that a struggling, radio wanna be named Rush Limbaugh was toiling away in Sacramento, but the very next year would make a leap to New York City and go national.

Whether you agree with Rush's politics or not, you cannot disagree with this: he made owning an AM radio station gold again. He made many small AM station owners - and, their advertisers - rich.

The political talk radio talk radio exploded, as did another format that was birthed by the newly energized and enriched AM stations: sports talk radio!

And, so, here is the only point at which a disagree with Mr. Rowan: at the end of the day, whatever the media format, the bills have to be paid by advertisers. And, advertisers flocked to conservative talk radio, then later to sports radio (more, to the political, though), because they paid the bills...and, then some.

Wise business men - Aggie and Longhorn alike, who just happened to be more conservative than liberal - saw what was happening, and simply took advantage of the situation.

Ted Turner could have done the same. He didn't. George Soros? He didn't either. Name any million or billionaire liberal of that time period and it's the same - they didn't see it coming either.

The more liberal media moguls and funders were too busy believing that Rush Limbaugh would simply disappear...because they were still getting their news/world view fed to them by the very media Rush's audience had long ago begun to ignore. To them, mistakenly, Rush was some hick from Missouri on the radio. A fad at best to the Ted Turners of the media world.

It seems like sour grapes, in my view, for anyone to complain about conservatives dominating talk radio. And, that is what the Fair Doctrine renewal talk is always about.

We went through these types of exercises in Antitrust Law class in law school. Coca Cola and Pepsi have been sued over and over and over again about grocery store shelf space access. But, guess what? Courts still unanimously favor Coke and Pepsi in those suits.

Why? Because someone got to an idea before you did and took advantage of it first does not give you the right to demand a piece of the pie later when you decide to jump in. The courts in every circuit in America - even the Ninth - agree on this point: competition means competition, not equality of access.

I personally like RC Cola better than Pepsi or Coke. But, sometimes, I'm bouncing from appointment to appointment in my car with a Cherry Coke or Pepsi because the gas station or convenience store I stopped into didn't stock RC.

This is why the BCS was never successfully sued as well. The bigger schools and conferences (and, Notre Dame) were the first to begin to see the future, tie down bowls and television rights, and feed the fan bases year round instead of just during football season. No court was going to reward other conferences and school for being slower on the uptake.

(I bitterly, bitterly tried to find an antitrust exception, having earned degrees from North Texas and Tulsa. But, alas...then, the biggest complainer, Utah, got an invite to the Pac-12. Utah to the Pac-12 was truly the squeakiest wheel getting the grease!)

Finally, you have to sell. Liberal talk shows, like any talk show, have to sell advertising to succeed. If they can't do it as well as the conservative ones, that is not the fault of an act or corporation. You do have to have something to sell in order to make money. Conservatives felt underserved by the "mainstream media" and rewarded advertisers for giving talk radio folks an outlet. Government already subsidized some public radio...and it's not profitable for them. They cannot do it on a larger scale under a supposed revival of the Fairness Doctrine in some form.

Edited May 11, 2017 by MeanGreenMailbox

Arkstfan · May 11, 2017

2 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

This is why the BCS was never successfully sued as well. The bigger schools and conferences (and, Notre Dame) were the first to begin to see the future, tie down bowls and television rights, and feed the fan bases year round instead of just during football season. No court was going to reward other conferences and school for being slower on the uptake.

(I bitterly, bitterly tried to find an antitrust exception, having earned degree from North Texas and Tulsa. But, alas...then, the biggest complainer, Utah, got an invite to the Pac-12. Utah to the Pac-12 was truly the squeakiest wheel getting the grease!)

The BCS as first drawn was shaky but they firmed up their position by changing the eligibility. CFP built on that.

I was told that when the CFP was being ironed out that the commissioners of the G5 got together and vowed to not sign the agreement unless they got a certain cut. They came armed for bear ready to fight. They get to the meeting and the P5 tell them they've discussed it and they are in agreement that if the G5 won't take their offer they will take their chances on any challenge. They get the offer and it is 50% more than the we gotta have this number and they all tried to act tough and cool while making sure to get it signed in case there was a mistake.

Stix · May 11, 2017

2 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · May 11, 2017

27 minutes ago, Arkstfan said:

The BCS as first drawn was shaky but they firmed up their position by changing the eligibility. CFP built on that.

I was told that when the CFP was being ironed out that the commissioners of the G5 got together and vowed to not sign the agreement unless they got a certain cut. They came armed for bear ready to fight. They get to the meeting and the P5 tell them they've discussed it and they are in agreement that if the G5 won't take their offer they will take their chances on any challenge. They get the offer and it is 50% more than the we gotta have this number and they all tried to act tough and cool while making sure to get it signed in case there was a mistake.

Yes, I believe that's all true. However, the thing is, after everyone (non-BCS schools and conferences) had their attorneys scour for ways to break up the BCS, the vast majority of antitrust legislation and cases end up with, you can either compete or you can't. If you can't, courts and legislatures aren't going to compete for you.

This seems counter intuitive to many because of the equal rights and affirmative action-type laws and cases. However, those cases are based on people; courts of law view products and entertainment differently than they do people.

Next to Oil and Gas Law, I found Antitrust Law the most fascinating, by the way. You hear so much about competition and monopolies and so forth. But, so few actually understand it well. My Sports Law prof, Ray Yasser, wrote one of the two main textbooks for Sports Law (the other is by a prof at Tulane). He was always trying to work in an antitrust angle in there, even if it didn't quite fit. The guy taught you how to look for angles in the law, even in sports. He's a long time Title IX plaintiffs' attorney as well.

Great professor, too, Yasser. If you have some interest in the nitty -gritty details of lawsuits involving professional or amateur athletes, and you have the iron butt to sit and read a law text, get a used copy of one of Professor Yasser's textbooks.

Edited May 11, 2017 by MeanGreenMailbox

Arkstfan · May 11, 2017

2 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

Yes, I believe that's all true. However, the thing is, after everyone (non-BCS schools and conferences) had their attorneys scour for ways to break up the BCS, the vast majority of antitrust legislation and cases end up with, you can either compete or you can't. If you can't, courts and legislatures aren't going to compete for you.

This seems counter intuitive to many because of the equal rights and affirmative action-type laws and cases. However, those cases are based on people; courts of law view products and entertainment differently than they do people.

Next to Oil and Gas Law, I found Antitrust Law the most fascinating, by the way. You hear so much about competition and monopolies and so forth. But, so few actually understand it well. My Sports Law prof, Ray Yasser, wrote one of the two main textbooks for Sports Law (the other is by a prof at Tulane). He was always trying to work in an antitrust angle in there, even if it didn't quite fit. The guy taught you how to look for angles in the law, even in sports. He's a long time Title IX plaintiffs' attorney as well.

Great professor, too, Yasser. If you have some interest in the nitty -gritty details of lawsuits involving professional or amateur athletes, and you have the iron butt to sit and read a law text, get a used copy of one of Professor Yasser's textbooks.

Been to a couple programs from the Tulane dude.

Before he saber-rattled the BCS on behalf of Tulane you had to be top 8 as a non-AQ. They changed it 12 but much more importantly (in my opinion) made it possible to qualify at 16 if any AQ team was rated worse. That's how NIU got in.

They don't have to let you in but the marketing as being the championship pretty much meant there had to an objective way to qualify but qualifying didn't have to mean you got the same financial cut.

I visited some years ago with the SEC main legal counsel and one of the things he felt was a certainty was that a breakaway was unlikely because the trade association anti-trust cases get pretty messy. Comments stuck with me because I always felt the trade association cases would end up being the controlling law if it ever hit the fan.

When the NCAA took a stab at making I-A really hard to get and maintain at the request of some of the I-AA leagues, before the more recent change I worked with AState on the matter. Because the Sun Belt wasn't considered a I-A yet for voting we could only ask questions and I spent hours boiling down a handful of questions that asked about what data had been relied on to set each proposed standard, asked if they had done any research on which institutions would be impacted and such. School made it clear to me they wouldn't sue but I did my best to make it look like they had someone on retainer who knew that crap. They had to submit the questions in advance of the meeting where they would take the final vote. Meeting day arrives and the proposal is immediately tabled and never heard from again.

outoftown · May 11, 2017

On 5/10/2017 at 3:41 PM, ColoradoEagle said:

Good points. I do prefer centralized media, though. I'd rather watch SportsCenter than Rangers Live. Not just because the Rangers are so adept at losing, but because there's only so much to be gleaned from more than a few minutes coverage of each game. If the Rangers are winning, ESPN, Fox Sports, etc will be talking about them.

The one thing about ESPN, though, is I am tired of them doubling down on 'marquee matchups'. There's only so much Yankees/Red Sox, Cubs/Cardinals, or Heat/Cavs that I can handle. They repeat the exact same matchups all the time. Just checked, and Sunday night baseball is yet another Yankees game. I'm genuinely shocked that the one after is Rangers/Tigers.

I think this is partly what has happened and hastened (not necessarily caused) the demise of ESPN etc. It is short term ratings over being the place where all sports happen. If you know that your little niche team/sport never makes it to their screen it will eventually get boring. And a lot (I think most) of sports fans have that little niche sport/team they love, and a big time sports-team they also like to follow because it is conveniently in the same place as all the sport and because people talk about it at work. If you turn this around and -because the ratings are higher- start thinking that it is completely worth focusing on the big matchups because they bring the highest ratings that week, you will erode your viewer base little by little as people realise that their first love can't be found there anymore.

ColoradoEagle · May 11, 2017

49 minutes ago, outoftown said:

If you turn this around and -because the ratings are higher- start thinking that it is completely worth focusing on the big matchups because they bring the highest ratings that week, you will erode your viewer base little by little as people realise that their first love can't be found there anymore.

Yep. And you reminded me of the #1 thing I hate about ESPN. If we (UNT) happen to find our way onto that channel, they spend a good 1/3rd of the broadcast plugging all the upcoming 'bigger games' over and over again. Or worse yet, simply talking about other teams/games while plays are unfolding on the field. I was so happy when we were on Fox Sports, and sad that we're now back to that crap with ESPN.

Cerebus · November 8, 2018

USA Today: Cord cutting accelerates as pay TV loses 1 million customers in largest-ever quarterly loss

Quote

Scratch the theory that cord cutting might be decelerating.

Cable and satellite TV providers lost about 1.1 million subscribers during the July to September period, the largest quarterly loss ever – and the first time the industry lost more than 1 million subscribers in a quarter, according to media and telecommunications research firm MoffettNathanson.

---

Overall, about 78 percent of U.S. TV households subscribe to some form of pay-TV service, down from 86 percent in 2013, according to Leichtman Research Group.

More evidence the economic model underpinning modern CFB is giving way. It was built on the back of free money to sports channels mostly from people who had to pay for it as part of bundle. Now people are leaving in droves, and that free money stream is being cut.

@meanrob stated in another thread that he didn't see any reason the B12 would break up. I really don't see any reason it will stay together. UT is in the B12 cause they are the only ones that let them keep the LongHorn Network.

The end game for ESPN is Disney forcing them to file bankruptcy so that they can re-structure all these contracts. Why does UT want to stay in the B12 when the LHN goes away or the rights fees from it get cut by 90%?

Cerebus · November 8, 2018

Another thing to think about, ESPN Events owns almost all of the bowls with G5 tie ins. What happens to those bowl games when ESPN has to restructure rights contracts?

golfingomez · November 8, 2018

i'm always really amazed when someone remembers a topic from back in the day and then goes searching for it to resurrect it.

Cerebus · November 8, 2018

Just now, golfingomez said:

i'm always really amazed when someone remembers a topic from back in the day and then goes searching for it to resurrect it.

It's my thread. The "CFB as we know it is changing because the funding model is dead" is a drumbeat I have been beating for a long time.

CFB changed greatly when NCAA/OU lawsuit changed the ownership of TV rights from the NCAA to the schools, it changed greatly as more and more people had to pay for tv they didn't watch, and its going to change greatly as more and more people leave cable services.