greg.w.h said:
The Big Ten notionally has more over the air content than the ESPN deal, but your other point for streaming is spot on.
Iowaggie said:rootube said:
It's funny how people ***** and moan about ESPN. I say be careful what you wish for. You are going to miss them when you have so sign up for three separate streaming services to watch A&M games like they do in that B10 monstrosity deal.
I think if ESPN was a stand alone package, separate from cable, the cost would be $25-70/month, if not much more. People used to complain about paying for a cable package because it had a lot of networks that people didn't watch, however they never complained that millions of people were also paying for ESPN that never watched it.
We used to complain about DirecTV or sling or these other cable/satellite providers pausing broadcast of a channel when having price disputes/negotiations with ESPN or other networks, but if ESPN is completely separate from the cable bundle, ESPN will regularly be raising the prices by more than what they were doing before.
A stand alone sports platform that actually had everything you 'want' on it would be a good idea, especially if they tied in gambling revenues and a deal with sports bars etc. MLB (and NFL) have been wanting to control their own distribution/broadcast deals/rights more for a long time, and I think ESPN's ability to do this now (even if spun off from the mouse), is going to be much lower than it could have been 10 or more years ago, when Disney leadership was doing stupid stuff like trying to control individual (losing) college program rights a la LHN for a fortune.Iowaggie said:rootube said:
It's funny how people ***** and moan about ESPN. I say be careful what you wish for. You are going to miss them when you have so sign up for three separate streaming services to watch A&M games like they do in that B10 monstrosity deal.
I think if ESPN was a stand alone package, separate from cable, the cost would be $25-70/month, if not much more. People used to complain about paying for a cable package because it had a lot of networks that people didn't watch, however they never complained that millions of people were also paying for ESPN that never watched it.
We used to complain about DirecTV or sling or these other cable/satellite providers pausing broadcast of a channel when having price disputes/negotiations with ESPN or other networks, but if ESPN is completely separate from the cable bundle, ESPN will regularly be raising the prices by more than what they were doing before.
These I believe are all over the air broadcasts:rootube said:greg.w.h said:
The Big Ten notionally has more over the air content than the ESPN deal, but your other point for streaming is spot on.
I know the new b10 contract will have games only available on B10+ streaming and on Peacock, plus whatever subscription is required for fox, cbs and regular NBC.
As far as I know the SEC has just ESPN and the occasional non-conf scrimmage on ESPN+ and the ESPN+ games will get even more rare when we finally go to 9 game conference schedule eventually.
Definitely Not A Cop said:
ESPN was one of the first networks ever that had paid advertising as well as charging subscribers on a monthly subscription. It's one of the main reasons they blew up as big as they did.
If ESPN starts trying to charge that, look for them to die on the vine. The only way I would pay that is if they got rid of commercial breaks completely in live sports and allowed you to watch live without commercials, and then everyone else watched on a delay with commercials.
You only get one of those per decade. I bet Disney already had the Fox RSN deal done with Sinclair before they closed on the Fox deal. It was easy to blame that deal on anti trust while is was more likely Disney the writing on the wall about streaming and knew they needed to dump the RSNs immediately. There is a reason they didn't even try to brand them as ESPN properties.greg.w.h said:
Dump it on a Sinclair…
https://www.nbcsports.com/college-football/news/michigan-penn-state-purdue-headline-nbc-sports-peacocks-early-big-ten-schedule#:~:text=The%20NBC%20Sports%20Big%20Ten,games%20available%20exclusively%20on%20Peacock.greg.w.h said:These I believe are all over the air broadcasts:rootube said:greg.w.h said:
The Big Ten notionally has more over the air content than the ESPN deal, but your other point for streaming is spot on.
I know the new b10 contract will have games only available on B10+ streaming and on Peacock, plus whatever subscription is required for fox, cbs and regular NBC.
As far as I know the SEC has just ESPN and the occasional non-conf scrimmage on ESPN+ and the ESPN+ games will get even more rare when we finally go to 9 game conference schedule eventually.
"The Big Ten designed the agreement to pair major networks with specific windows on college football Saturdays. Fox will air games beginning at noon ET. CBS, which has a deal with the SEC that expires after the 2023 football season, in 2024 will begin airing Big Ten games in the same midafternoon window. NBC will carry Big Ten games in prime time, which will be branded "Big Ten Saturday Night." Big Ten games also will appear on Peacock, NBC's direct-to-consumer streaming platform.
"People need to know where they need to go, at what time and what content they're going to get," Warren said. "That's how you build fan avidity from a long-term standpoint. We will have three clearly defined pockets of Fox at noon, CBS at 3:30 and NBC in prime. That was important for me, that we have window pairs."
Their streamed broadcasts in FS1 likely will remain important. The Big Ten Network will continue to suck hind teat since effectively he traditional "not picked up by anyone else" Tier 3 content. The other streaming platforms will get the other slightly more valuable games. (That's the "also will appear on Peacock" aside btw.)
And, yes, you either have OTA that works or you don't, but it notionally is only ad supported.
you seem really concerned about what others think. And you use to spaces after a period. Fail.greg.w.h said:
The primary reason for the multiple network strategy was OTA games on each like NFL. Just like with ESPN+ games simulcast with SECN/SECN+ that is what it takes to close the deal as they respond to the shifting cable / sat / traditional bundle packages. I never said once there was no streaming content on peacock+. I said the OTA was the primary focus of multiple networks especially CBS.
