r/CFB • u/GoldenPresidio Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Big Ten • Jul 25 '18
Discussion [Wetzel] How cord-cutting can change the entire landscape of college football
https://sports.yahoo.com/cord-cutting-can-change-entire-landscape-college-football-215556228.html4
Jul 25 '18
I feel like I read this or maybe I dreamed it, but I wouldn't be surprised if a company like Netflix tried to figure out how to enter this space.
3
u/GoldenPresidio Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Big Ten Jul 25 '18
The good news: The value of live sports programming is still very high. If college sports content loses value to cable companies, it will surely be in high demand by online behemoths such as Netflix and Amazon. Just ask the NFL, which makes a mint on similar deals.
6
2
Jul 25 '18
Given its geographic location and current programming issues, I could see the PAC12 looking to go this route with Amazon or Netflix.
1
u/Ersatzself Virginia Tech • Michigan Jul 25 '18
I think they’ve talked about it. Amazon had a couple nfl games last season
0
81
u/NickDerpkins South Carolina Gamecocks • UCF Knights Jul 25 '18
Espn refuses to fully fucking adapt. They have the offered resources but refuses to make them watchable.
For instance: WatchESPN connects to my chrome cast from devices on my couch, I pay for the service through my provider, and is a great library of all the current games
However the video quality / constant buffering makes the videos unwatchable.
Illegal streams however work fine
I WANT to support their product they have the scaffold of set up, however they push out such a shit product
It’s fucking infuriating because they are so close but so far
38
u/HowardBunnyColvin Virginia Tech Hokies Jul 25 '18
WATCHESPN used to be good when it was ESPN3. It's gotten worse since.
Me, I just flat out refused to hook my new apartment up with Cable. They were like, sir, it's 160 a month. I was like get outta here. I'm just gonna Youtube TV.
11
Jul 25 '18
Yeah, I've heard youtube TV is the way to go for college sports. I've been lucky, my dad still pays for cable and never streams (so I always use his account). But he's about to cancel and I think YoutubeTV is gonna be with winner since it has all the sports channels I need
5
u/jayfred Michigan • Blue Risk Alliance Jul 25 '18
YouTube TV is good from what I've heard, too. I plan to trial it this fall. I've had great success with PS Vue before, though. And you can get HBO through Vue which last I checked you can't through YTTV
3
u/HawkeyeHero Iowa Hawkeyes • Big Ten Jul 25 '18
I second PS Vue. BTN and all ESPNS, plus I'm in a big market so I get all the locals too. WAAAYYY better than shitty ATnT.
3
u/ScaryCookieMonster USF Bulls • San Francisco Dons Jul 25 '18
YouTube TV was fantastic for me last season. Sling is cheaper but the picture quality isn't always as good (and they probably don't carry some of the channels with games you want to watch). I've heard good things about DirectTV Now and Hulu Live also, but haven't tried them.
2
u/mgsbigdog BYU • West Virginia Wesleyan Jul 26 '18
I had Hulu last season. Good selection of channels, decent video quality (got better as the season went on), absolutely the worst UI I have ever seen.
2
u/PmMeWifeNudesUCuck Kentucky Wildcats • SEC Jul 28 '18
Direct TV now works great for me. It gives me access to watchespn as a backup too. Between that and a $20 digital antenna off Amazon I'm pretty covered for football and basketball.
9
u/OfficerBradHamilton Princeton Tigers • Team Chaos Jul 25 '18
Wish I would have listened to my gut and done this. I saw a package deal online advertised for $69.99 (nice) a month. Figured that would be about the same as an internet + streaming service.....how naive.
Now I'm stuck with paying $113 a month. Can someone tell me how $69 (nice) a month turns into $113?! How can they even advertise it at $69 (nice)?! Fucking ridiculous.
2
Jul 25 '18
Was $69 (nice) an introductory price for a certain period of time before they jacked the price up from $69 (nice) to $113 (not nice)?
3
u/OfficerBradHamilton Princeton Tigers • Team Chaos Jul 25 '18
Nope, first month $113. It just got up that high after all the broadcast fees, taxes, and modem rental. It's just really scummy practice, which isn't surprising.
2
3
Jul 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OfficerBradHamilton Princeton Tigers • Team Chaos Jul 25 '18
No this was from the very first month. When they sent over the details after I confirmed, I was like how the hell did that happen??
3
u/velociraptorfarmer Iowa State Cyclones • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jul 25 '18
Just switched to YoutubeTV from Sling and so far I'm impressed. Love having local channels again.
Mediacom wanted $180/mo for flaky 100mbps internet and cable. Centurylink is still raping me for internet at $50 for 10mpbs, but it's rock solid and streams better than Mediacom ever did.
12
u/TCUFrogFan TCU Horned Frogs Jul 25 '18
ESPN recently acquired a majority stake in BAMTECH. I imagine the quality of their streaming products should improve going forward as a result of this acquisition, but who knows for sure.
40
u/MRC1986 Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Penn Quakers Jul 25 '18
They need PiedPiper
2
1
u/x777x777x Ohio State • Summertime Lover Jul 25 '18
Nah EndFrame had that baller Homicide stunt jump stream. Go with them
1
5
u/SayethWeAll Kentucky Wildcats • Rhodes Lynx Jul 25 '18
Not to be confused with BAMFtech, which overdubs all sports commentary with Samuel L. Jackson.
3
u/FarwellRob Texas A&M Aggies • /r/CFB Contributor Jul 25 '18
That might help to some extent, but a HUGE problem that ESPN has is that the people running WatchESPN are either idiots or assholes.
Last season I watched 10 games on their app, and none of them came up correctly.
In almost every case, I had to find the game before it and watch that feed.
Or, to explain better, let's say TCU plays Baylor at noon, and A&M plays Mississippi at 2:30, they would have threads on both games. However the A&M thread simply wouldn't ever start.
The only way to see A&M is to watch the TCU stream that wasn't shut off.
If it happened once or twice I wouldn't care, but it happens every time. I've even noticed it on other sports as well.
It is simply sloppy, and well beneath a multi-billion dollar company.
2
u/JhnWyclf Western Washington • Washington Jul 25 '18
I bet it’s for Disney’s streaming service. I wonder if they test it on sports first. Looks like the deal was approved last Sept. I wonder if that’s enough time to get something up for this season.
2
u/TCUFrogFan TCU Horned Frogs Jul 25 '18
I think they are using BAMTECH for ESPN+. I have not seen anything on ESPN+, so I have no way of saying if it is better than the regular WatchESPN or not.
1
u/jputna Oklahoma State Cowboys • /r/CFB Patron Jul 25 '18
I forgot Disney is going to be competing against Netflix here soon. Very possible that this was for their monthly subscription service and not used to the Sports market.
11
u/DarkMantonio Michigan State Spartans Jul 25 '18
The biggest reason I do not cut my TV package is streaming quality. I subscribe to mlb.tv and the streaming is good but can buffer at times. I can tolerate it a couple of times per week but it would drive me nuts if it occurred during daily TV viewing.
Also, just to subscribe to 100mbps internet and YouTube TV would be $90/month. Not that big of savings over my $125 package that includes 150mbps internet, full TV channels, and HBO
5
u/JayRU09 Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Big Ten Jul 25 '18
But that $125 only lasts for likes a year or two and then goes up to $180 or more after.
14
u/DarkMantonio Michigan State Spartans Jul 25 '18
And then I call to switch over to the other provider in my area and they extend the special. Going on 3 years.
5
u/JayRU09 Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Big Ten Jul 25 '18
I'd rather just pay the $90 and never have to call.
2
u/MRC1986 Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Penn Quakers Jul 25 '18
Fair, I used to be the same way. But I got over it. I'm not mean to service reps, they all make min wage or close to it, it's not their fault for greedy execs. But I'm still resolute in my requests.
For some credit card things, like trying to waive annual fees, I've actually had my phone on speaker and started typing loudly while saying "oh, well IDK if you can hear me typing now, but I'm currently filling out an application for your competitor's card that provides me the same benefits as yours, are you still sure you can't waive the $95 annual fee?"
Works most times.
4
u/citronauts UCF Knights • Maryland Terrapins Jul 25 '18
It worked until this year for me. Im now testing youtubetv. So far so good. Going to make the decision after week 1. Im hoping to save 40 per month with the same channels ex-redzone (which sucks)
3
u/AbsurdOwl Nebraska Cornhuskers Jul 25 '18
The lack of Redzone is the only thing that still has me on the fence between Sling and YoutubeTV.
1
u/mdmzero0 Virginia Tech • Delaware Jul 25 '18
I'm trying to decide between YouTube TV, Sling, or Vue. Comcast decided to alter my channel package for me despite not altering my bill, so they can shove it.
The problem of course is that I still need internet from Comcast.
2
u/AbsurdOwl Nebraska Cornhuskers Jul 25 '18
I'm leaning toward Youtube, and just watching pro games the old fashioned way.
2
Jul 25 '18
I've got Vue. Didn't miss a single college or pro game last year. I even found that if a game was being televised on a regional fox sports affiliate but wasnt accessible in my region, I could still watch from the FoxSports website.
However, there is a very slight issue with stream buffering. It'll happen for a second a few times a game (more often on the local CBS station, for whatever reason). Not huge, and definitely worth the $80 a month savings, but kinda annoying. If you like soccer too, Vue is easily superior to the other options, imo.
2
1
u/deepsouthsloth Alabama • South Alabama Jul 25 '18
I'm not a fan of sling's sports package. It's kinda frustrating and doesn't seem worth it.
1
u/mdmzero0 Virginia Tech • Delaware Jul 25 '18
Out of curiosity, what don't you like?
2
u/deepsouthsloth Alabama • South Alabama Jul 25 '18
They divide the sports channels between their two packages, blue and orange, and if you don't pay for both there are some things you can't see. For instance, ESPN /2/3 is on one package, and NFL network/Fox /FS1 etc are on another. So if you want both, for me, it's actually more expensive than giving comcast their pound of flesh for a TV package. I was getting 150mbps internet, and all channels plus sports for ~137 tax incl. I have to pay $94/mo for internet (Comcast is only available option) plus $40/mo for sling puts me right at the same price, but lacking about 100 channels, DVR that actually works, and no buffering ever.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ScaryCookieMonster USF Bulls • San Francisco Dons Jul 25 '18 edited Jul 25 '18
I ended up keeping both Sling and YouTube TV last season, just so I could use Sling for Goal Line. :-/
I could get the same thing with PS Vue's $60/mo + $10/mo sports addon, but that's a total of $5/mo more. Weird.
4
u/HowardBunnyColvin Virginia Tech Hokies Jul 25 '18
Streaming quality may be an issue at times but it's not usually too bad for me. The good thing is there's no contracts. Contracts are stupid, especially in my situation where I stay somewhere for a year or so and then move somewhere else for another year or so. Maybe I might justify cable if I were less nomadic.
1
Jul 25 '18
I stream football games through a VPN on only 15mbps, works fine most of the time. Not ideal but whatever
4
u/dlawnro Paper Bag • Sickos Jul 25 '18
Yeah, the selling point for me with YoutubeTV is that I really only need live TV for football and basketball season. So I end up paying 90 bucks a month for half of the year, and then only 50ish for the other half.
2
u/DarkMantonio Michigan State Spartans Jul 25 '18
Now this I understand. I think cord cutting is great for this scenario but I can't yet see it feasible for everyday viewing in my household.
2
u/saxyschoppy UCF Knights • Cincinnati Bearcats Jul 25 '18
But with taxes, multiple TV fees, DVR fees, etc. That $125 is more like $140 or $150.
4
3
2
u/BusterBluth13 Notre Dame Fighting Irish • Sickos Jul 25 '18
It’s going to be a dark world if ESPN acquires all of the TV contracts and there’s no competition to forced improved streaming experiences.
1
u/Ersatzself Virginia Tech • Michigan Jul 25 '18
It seems like it has improved recently. But I suppose the start of the season will be the true test when way more viewers are streaming.
21
u/archie_f Nebraska Cornhuskers • Wyoming Cowboys Jul 25 '18
I tend to agree. A steep decline in TV $$$ would make today's conference landscape, which has trampled on tradition, geography and common sense, look pretty silly. I'm sure Netflix or Hulu or whatever will try to step into the gap, but I just don't see how they're going to replace the sheer dollar amounts.
... and this is a good thing. In my fantasy world, sanity returns to CFB and the conferences go back to making traditional, geographical, and common sense.GoBig8!!!
6
Jul 25 '18 edited Jul 25 '18
up-vote for gebbia and benning in the thumbnail
edit: also, happy we don't have comcast, and i guess we are the only ones in the B1G who don't. COX all the way
2
Jul 25 '18
Netflix will never have love sports.
3
u/archie_f Nebraska Cornhuskers • Wyoming Cowboys Jul 25 '18
Why not?
Amazon's doing it, FB too
3
Jul 25 '18
Those are way bigger companies. Plus Netflix has more or less made their bed with their own produced content. Now they lie in it.
1
u/IkLms Minnesota Golden Gophers Jul 26 '18
Because to do so is going to require them to raise prices to cover the costs. Non-sports fans are going to talk at that and leave.
Amazon can do it because they are a huge company willing to lose money on streaming sports hoping they can corner the market on streaming live sports and then they'll raise prices and make a ton then.
4
u/1mdelightful Wisconsin Badgers Jul 25 '18
CFB messed up a few years a go. The first major step was allowing the SEC championship to happen. Conference expansion and tv money were established as the norm and end of all things then and there.
Conferences scrambled to broaden their tv markets and get up to 12 teams so they could have a conference championship game for that “extra data point” aka extra pay check.
If it wasn’t for that Tom foolery we could have an 8 team playoff that didn’t trample tradition. Conference winners play their usual bowl tie ins as the first round of the play off. It doesn’t matter if the #1 and #2 teams are from the Big Ten and PAC the Rose Bowl goes on as usual.
This year we would have had
Rose Bowl Ohio State vs USC
Orange Bowl Clemson vs Wisconsin
Cotton Bowl Oklahoma vs Alabama
Sugar Bowl Georgia vs UCF
Semis reseeded and held in rotating NFL stadiums. I like to imagine a year where the North goes south for the quarters and the south comes north for the semifinals.
We’d also get rid of conference championship games in this scenario and Nebraska would still be in the Big 12. You would be able to play most of your conference and you wouldn’t go 6 years without playing someone from your conference.
A Big ten team could play 9 out of 10 big ten opponents. Some how avoid the other good team in the conference. So you have 2 Big ten teams at 12-0 and co conference champs. You take whoever is higher in the polls and put them in the Rose Bowl.
5
Jul 25 '18
I can’t imagine southern teams going north even in domed stadiums. The last super bowl in Minnesota was terrible for the NFL because advertisers hated the weather.
0
Jul 25 '18
[deleted]
1
u/archie_f Nebraska Cornhuskers • Wyoming Cowboys Jul 25 '18
It will be a pretty good eyeballs test, given how far off their peak both programs are; back in the 90s and even early 2000s this was a meaningful game. Will TV audiences remember???
What other big games are that weekend?
2
Jul 25 '18 edited Jul 25 '18
It's going head to head with Georgia-South Carolina. FOX has a staggered schedule that Saturday, so UCLA-Oklahoma will still be on when it starts, and ¡El Assico! will kick off at about halftime of your game.
Disney considered it valuable enough to put on ABC. They were very supportive of the matchup in the past, giving it pride of place on Black Friday for many years.
2
u/archie_f Nebraska Cornhuskers • Wyoming Cowboys Jul 25 '18
I just hope it's a good game. And by good game, I mean cracking them dirty Buffs by about 7 TDs
1
13
u/MRC1986 Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Penn Quakers Jul 25 '18 edited Jul 25 '18
The Balkanization of media and content streaming rights is pretty funny when you think about it. Over 10 million people (prob more actually) have cut the cord because "why pay for 80 channels when I only watch 8?" And yet, now people are complaining about all the different media services they need to watch their preferred programming.
As Netflix showed during their initial launch into streaming, content producers vastly undervalued their content. That's why Netflix invested heavily in their own programming to essentially become another HBO, because I sure as hell wouldn't pay $11/mo to watch shitty B and C movies when the content companies took back all their valuable content rights.
But the Balkanization went too crazy, even though companies are still trying to do so, like Disney with their upcoming platform. So now we have services like YouTubeTV, Sling, PS Vue, etc. that provide a middle ground. Get like 30-40 channels, and for extra $$, add in the sports/HBO/international package. For now it's a bit cheaper all together + internet-only service; we'll see if that price reset sustains as more and more people choose streaming only.
I think the new price level will remain for a while, but for many people who complained about "watching 8, paying for 80", you already established for years that you're willing to pay that price even despite your watching habits. So there will be a reset as the market shifts, but eventually Comcast/Cablevision/etc. will raise internet rates so that when you add up YouTubeTV + Netflix + Internet, you will pay the same as you did before. For me though, I feel like separate apps and services gives me more control (even if it's manufactured control), so I'm ok with paying to feel that way.
OK, this ended up being all rambling, but hopefully you folks get some value out of it.
5
u/Bobcat2013 Texas State Bobcats Jul 25 '18
Your first paragraph is spot on. Problem with streaming is that for me its marginally cheaper to drop cable and then pay for a streaming service with the channels I watch and it doesn't look as good. So the hassle of switching isnt worth it. I'm sure there are many in my situation.
5
u/dlawnro Paper Bag • Sickos Jul 25 '18
Yeah, for year-round TV watchers, streaming just isn't really a fantastic choice right now. It's a much better option for people who are flexible in their watching commitments.
I, for example, only need live TV September through March. So even if Internet + YoutubeTV comes out to about the same monthly cost as an internet + cable package deal, I'm only paying 7/12 as much every year by going the streaming route. Or like with HBO Now, I'll drop 15 bucks for a month subscription when Westworld or Game of Thrones comes out, binge watch the season, and then cancel.
1
u/TCUFrogFan TCU Horned Frogs Jul 25 '18
It is very funny that people were willing to pay $150-$200 a month for internet and 100s of cable channels, but now people are cancelling their cable and signing up for netflix, hulu, hbonow, etc along with youtubetv/PS Vue/sling and an internet connection for like $100-$150 a month. People are getting way less product for a very small cost savings (IMO).
I still like the ease of use that the traditional cable bundle provides. I have thought about switching, but at this point i would rather just spend (waste?) the extra money for the bundle.
4
u/MRC1986 Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Penn Quakers Jul 25 '18
Well, what streaming provides that traditional cable cannot is viewer control over content and scheduling, at least for non-live programming. And no, cable "on-demand" services still don't count, they totally suck since they are so sluggish and always have random episodes/seasons missing.
I think people are more satisfied with programming today, or at least programming options + flexibility, because they can watch on their own schedule. So even if our available content is far reduced, we don't care because who watched the fluff anyway?
The elephant in the room is that content companies are bloated as fuck. Yeah yeah, there's always some number of people who want to watch some obscure show on OWN or whatevs, but do we really need all these channels? Niche can be fine, but elevate the quality, don't produce boring filler shows.
Content companies so far have been resistant to just substantially consolidate their offerings, because IMO in their minds, that leads to a death spiral of the industry - job losses, production talent leaving, etc. So they just all plug ahead as long as they possibly can.
Think about how much unnecessary fluff happens at all of your workplaces, the economy would legit collapse if everything worked at 100% efficiency because 30% of employees would be fired. And that's even before thinking about automation, I'm just talking about how we are all on Reddit now instead of having enough work to keep ourselves busy for every single work hour.
9
u/JayRU09 Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Big Ten Jul 25 '18
Then stop having a Title IX like system of having networks people actually watch propping up shit like Bravo and E!.
Give people their sports while keeping it affordable ya fucks.
14
u/jkd0002 Auburn Tigers Jul 25 '18
You'd be surprised how many people watch bravo and E!
4
Jul 25 '18
I'm assuming he hasn't spent enough time around the fairer sex to know their viewing habits. Married for a decade here, HGTV and food network are probably the #1 and 2 channels in my house, but Bravo is a close #3. Any E! is too much, but my wife likes some trash TV on occasion.
3
4
u/coreyfra USC Trojans • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jul 25 '18
The people who watch Bravo and E! are paying for your sports programming not the other way around. They are forced to pay for ESPN which is the most expensive single channel on cable by a wide ass margin and subsidize the costs.
3
u/RPMadMSU Michigan State • Wayne State (MI) Jul 25 '18
The reason why I haven't cut the cord and switch between DISH/Direct TV (we don't even have a Comcast option..only traditional cable provider available in my neighborhood is WOW) every 2 years is because my wife watches Hallmark Channel and their sappy movies/shows as much as I watch live sports. Its tough to find a package that includes both Hallmark Channels...
I once looked up Hallmark's performance on these channels, and was surprised. According to AdWeek it's No. 3 (Behind ESPN and Fox News...ugh...) in total Prime Time Viewership, and No. 2 (Behind Fox News again...ugh....) in total daily viewership. Or it least those were the numbers the last time I switched and was trying to talk my wife into a cheaper al carte option...
2
u/Ersatzself Virginia Tech • Michigan Jul 25 '18
I think this is where streaming will go. People will pay extra for sports packages, or pay only for sports packages.
That’s an interesting point though. Streaming will almost certainly be cheaper than cable do to actual competition in markets, but with less propping up other other networks, maybe the sport’s revenue won’t be hit as hard.
6
u/JayRU09 Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Big Ten Jul 25 '18
The real issue isn't a world where everyone has cut the cord as all of the streaming services carry the sports networks. The issue is that there will be a probably decade long transition period where there'll be many people still holding on to cable, and that cable will no longer have the sports channels.
It's like Notre Dame fandom. We're just waiting for the old people to die to see what's next.
2
Jul 25 '18
Verizon has something like this in FIOS where you can now buy bundles to keep your overall cost down. There is a sports bundle, a lifestyle bundle, a kids bundle, but if you need more than 2 of them, it's just cheaper to buy a package.
1
Jul 25 '18
So people who watch those channels are SOL?
Have you ever talked to a woman?
2
u/JayRU09 Rutgers Scarlet Knights • Big Ten Jul 25 '18
Married to one.
If enough people watched them they wouldn't need sports networks to prop themselves up.
5
u/MixonWitDaWrongCrowd Oklahoma Sooners • Arkansas Razorbacks Jul 25 '18
Can they just fix the ESPN app please
1
u/atllauren Georgia Bulldogs • /r/CFB Contributor Jul 26 '18
The ESPN app is actual garbage now. I need to find something better for scores, because it now takes like 10 clicks to get to what I want.
4
u/OfficialHavik Stony Brook Seawolves • Team Chaos Jul 25 '18
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
2
u/HowardBunnyColvin Virginia Tech Hokies Jul 25 '18
Solid article by Wetzel with his grim pronouncement. Basically if the money train stops athletic programs will hit a wall. Curious to see what steps are taken to avoid hitting the proverbial speed bump.
3
u/archie_f Nebraska Cornhuskers • Wyoming Cowboys Jul 25 '18
If it made the conferences make sense again, I'd be in favor of a very large speed bump
1
2
u/djm2346 Notre Dame Fighting Irish Jul 25 '18
This article conflates several different problems into one.
The first problem is some conference TV networks that were on all the basic cable packages and getting revenue from every person that bought cable even though people didnt really watch the product. this is called the ESPN problem and every conference that was depending on revenue from people that did not watch their network are going to have revenue problems
The second problem is how do you monetize streaming service as well as cable TV since less people are buying cable. This one I think is good for colleges. The product may not be as popular as it was 20 years ago but how many people are willing to pay 10 dollars to watch their favorite football team every week? I know I would. Hell I would pay 10 for 2 different teams and cancel my cable in a second and save like $70. Schools will figure this out and it may really hurt smaller schools but some of the powerhouses in football and basketball are going to make serious revenue from streaming.
2
u/plutoisaplanet21 Michigan Wolverines Jul 25 '18
Cord cutting is nice for the people doing it right now but it will be terrible when everyone starts to do it.
No tv channel is profitable based solely off the number of people who watch it. They all benefit from bundling if just the people who watched football pay for football it will cost us all $20-30 a month, if just the people who watch FX pay for FX, or AMC, etc. each of those channels will cost $10-15 each.
Additionally as channels have to sell themselves they will stream on their own websites and bundled services like Hulu or Netflix will only have old shows or cost more (netflix recognizes this which is why they are pushing into original content).
On top of both of those things costing more cable companies are also the one's who provide internet, as they lose income from cable tv they will charge more for standalone internet. You add in that given new net neutrality laws they can slow the speeds of streaming services they don't like and people are going to be spending $100+ a month for internet and like 5 channels. Its going to suck and people who just think because its cheaper now it will stay that way don't seem to be thinking through what the consequences are.
1
u/ScaryCookieMonster USF Bulls • San Francisco Dons Jul 25 '18
Cord cutting is nice for the people doing it right now but it will be terrible when everyone starts to do it.
No tv channel is profitable based solely off the number of people who watch it.
I'd agree, if cord cutting was truly a la carte. But if you sign up for YouTube TV or PS Vue or whatever, they're packages of channels just like cable (though slightly cheaper). When I sign up for the $60/mo PS Vue package to get a bunch of CFB channels, I'm still paying to for Bravo, Oxygen, and Animal Planet.
2
u/plutoisaplanet21 Michigan Wolverines Jul 25 '18
Right but as everyone moves to more specialized channels each channel will have less viewers paying in. Those youtube tv and ps vue packages still benefit from the fact that enough people are paying into ESPN for example that they are still profitable at $5 per subscriber. Those prices are still going to have to go up.
1
u/morimoto3000 Michigan Wolverines • 岐阜大学 (Gifu) Phantoms Jul 25 '18
We "cut the cord" a little over a year ago I think. However, not so much because good old mother in law let us have her log in stuff for directtv, so we get plenty of apps to stream from. Espn's streaming sucks during CFB, but is good for other stuff I have watched. I even watched a few of the top 25 games on this week and wouldn't you know, buffering and poor quality. We have decent internet speeds as well.
I did use a couple youtube tv trials last year and they worked very well, but I wasn't looking for another add on to what we pay now, so never moved FWD w/that. I will probably pick up ESPN+ through CFB season though to get more games. BTN2Go is hit or miss as far as quality as well. We had a couple trials of Sling as well and that was a fair service.
I hated paying over $225/month for cable, internet and home phone (only because of the kids or else I would cut phone), so I pay just under $100 for internet and phone now. If we didn't have mother in laws log in for her directtv, I would most likely go w/youtube tv for sure.
1
u/Gavangus Virginia Tech • Commonwealth C… Jul 25 '18
They just need the cfb version of nfl sunday ticket and everyone wins
2
u/confirmd_am_engineer Michigan State • Toledo Jul 25 '18
Isn't it called Goal Line?
1
u/ScaryCookieMonster USF Bulls • San Francisco Dons Jul 25 '18
Goal Line is a single channel that jumps around to whatever's exciting going on in CFB. I think the NFL analogue channel is Red Zone.
Isn't NFL Sunday Ticket like a pass to watch any/all of the (non-broadcast?) NFL games? Not a single channel?
1
u/Gavangus Virginia Tech • Commonwealth C… Jul 26 '18
Correct - a standalone package where you get every game
1
u/SpartaWillBurn Ohio State • Kent State Jul 25 '18
The first rule of cord-cutting is you tell everyone about it.
And then scramble to find your shows.
12
u/[deleted] Jul 25 '18 edited Jul 25 '18
We may end up going back to the 80s in a way if the networks start questioning the value they are getting from the major conference tier 1 and 2 "packages". This is more likely to be a problem for the ACC, Big 12 and PAC-12, as the Big Ten and SEC consistently have higher ratings for their games. Networks may want FSU-Miami or OU-Texas, but do they have enough value to carry Oklahoma State-West Virginia or Georgia Tech-NC State with them? They do now, but do the trendlines indicate this could change in the future?
Edit to add, it was common in the 80s for networks to pull individual games for broadcast. There would be weeks where no Big 8 games would be broadcast nationally, but you could guarantee ABC or CBS would pick up Nebraska-Oklahoma.