I would love this too. The rates are getting nuts and I could literally be happy with about 25 specific channels.
***OFFICIAL BIG 12 EXPANSION THREAD 2.0***
- Thread starter Boxerdaddy
- Start date
- Status
How happy will you be when those 25 channels cost $4 each per month? Or are you one of those a la carte fantasy people that think if 200 channels cost $100 per month then 25 channels will cost $12.50 per month?
The channels would have to be priced so that a critical mass of people buy them. Although I'm sure the content providers and cable/satellite people will certainly be using similar scare tactics...
Certain high demand channels will certainly be able to ask a high price. ESPN is the most obvious. But others are going to have to be at a much lower price point or they aren't going to have a wide enough distribution to make any money selling advertising. This already happens behind the scenes between the networks and the cable companies, the end consumer just doesn't see it.
Dude, at $4/channel, it would still be cheaper than what I pay a month. I get there is money needed in all this, but the cost is getting brutal. I love TV and even I am thinking about switching to online only. I feel if rates were lowered about 25%, they would be acceptable, but if a person doesn't watch 90% of the stations available, there is something wrong with the set up.
Why would it only be $4/channel? Why wouldn't popular channels, such as ESPN, USA, TNT, etc., charge, say, $50/channel?
Lol because people wouldn't buy them. I wouldn't.
Direct TV charges $17.99 for HBO which is outrageous. Once TruBlood is done, I cancel it again for 6 months.
And yet you assume they maximize their profits at $4/month.
Perhaps it's not $50/month, but there's a reason why HBO charges at $17.99/month - they don't care that not everybody can pay at that price point. They care that they maximize profits at that price point.
I can also see a greater demand for ESPN than HBO. Guess what? That means ESPN can charge more than HBO can in an a-la-carte format.
Everyone assumes that a-la-carte is this great thing. I see it as a "be careful what you wish for" thing.
While I don't think they will jump from $5 to $50, I don't think ala carte cable would save much money. The movie channels are ala carte and range from $7/mo to probably around $20. But that is usually a package of movie channels. You don't get one HBO, you get four or five.
Unbundled channels means fewer subscribers for most channels. Using Nielson numbers, it looks like about 103 million of 114 million households have cable/satellite. Would unbundled cable bring in additional subscribers? Possibly. But many more would opt out of channels too. If ESPN has 100 million homes at $5/mo, how many will they lose if unbundled? Surely there are hippies out there who could care less for the Yankee-Red Sox-Tebow channel. So if they lose 10% of households, they would have to raise fees by approximately 10% to maintain revenue. Not a huge jump. But what if they lose more than that?
And, unable to compete, many channels would fold. Fewer channels means less programming. Every so often, I enjoy watching a show on the Science channel or Animal Planet. But would those channels exist with fewer subscribers? There probably wouldn't be AMC to air Mad Men. Would it air on another channel? Yes. But, if no major channels picked it up originally, one would think it may not have been developed in the first place.
Finally, bundling also adds costs to the cable companies. Maybe most of it can be done online but there will be more customer service techs needed. Which are costs passed down to consumers.
Why would McCain want to get in the way of capitalism. If a new dish company popped up tomorrow and sold channels a la carte they'd go broke. Dish Netwok used to do this, then they realized that nobody else was.
Okay so it costs more per channel but I would I don't mind paying for what I use. I do mind paying for someone else to use. Why should someone else subsidies my sports programming and why should I subsidies their animal planet needs?
I highly doubt it changes, but if it does, I hope it gets to the point where there are no more channels and it is just content and you purchase the content you want to watch. I don't care about anything on ESPN besides NFL, NBA, NCAA FB and NCAA MB games. So it would be great if I could just pay a fee to to the NCAA or NFL and watch their games and not have to pay ESPN for a bunch of crap I don't want. Give the consumer what they want and they will make more money and have less costs.
TV is going to have to change because advertising money is going to change, they are not going to be able to fund shows through ads like they have in the past. The only shows people with DVRs watch live are live sporting events and even those the majority start 30 minutes late. What good does CBS get out of those customers who watch all their primetime shows on DVR. I haven't watch a regular primetime show as it was aired in years. Currently I am in the minority, but in 5 or 10 years I will be a majority.
Sorry end of rant.
I guarantee they lose way more than 10%. I bet conservative numbers are 25% of cable customers have never watched it and would drop it immediately and another 25% would probably drop it to save money. Of the remainder a good chunk probably wouldn't keep it year round. In an a la carte environment I think ESPN is forced to lose money until they can cut their programming costs. Then we can all sit back and watch athletic departments across the country go broke.
I agree on TV changing its business model. I heard somewhere that money spent on TV advertising actually decreased for the 1st time in decades. Overall, advertising is up. They are just looking for new mediums. Internet advertising is dramatically increasing.
Firstly, I have to say I don't want the Big 12 to expand at all. If we HAVE to add two teams I've changed my mind several times depending what is going on with other conferences but am currently of the opinion that Northern Illinois and Cincinnati would be best for us. I know some may laugh at UNI, but I think they may be a diamond in the rough for the Big 12.
The ACC,SEC, Pac, BigTen schools are all off limits. BYU and Boise State are too far away. USF/UCF would make for division headaches, not to mention that even though they get you into Florida they are at best #4 and #5 in terms of interest in their home state. FSU/UF/Miami already have too much football history for us to really gain much viewership in Florida which is what the big tv execs want for our tv contracts.
Look at UNI. They could solve some problems for the Big 12. One, they along with Cincinnati would bridge a gap between the founding members of the league and WVU and two they get us into the 3rd largest market in the United States (Chicago) and the 5th highest population state in the nation. They are really only competing with Illinois and Northwestern in their state. These are two schools that don't really have a lot of long term success in football. If you place UNI in a very winnable North Division and rotate the Big XII football championship games between Dallas and Soldier Field, you're going to start winning over a significant portion of the Chicago market. You could also probably host a couple basketball tournaments there as well although I don't know if they'd be as successful. The exposure would be great for our league.
Why go to Florida and compete with two strong leagues, the SEC and ACC when you can go to just outside of Chicago and try and compete for viewers there with only the Big Ten? It would give ISU another close game too and would help for all of our nonrevenue sports in that division to have closer games. We could also mandate that for Cincinnati and UNI to be included that they must expand their stadiums and until they do they play big games like home vs. OU/UT in Paul Brown Stadium and Soldier Field.
Last edited:
Well who would you add then that would actually come? Because the Big 12 doesn't have any good options which is why I said at the beginning I don't think we should expand. If we have to though, there are no good options left so take two that have potential and fit them into a geographic division.
Teams ahead of NIU in no particular order:
BYU
Cincy
USF
UCF
CSU
UCONN
SDSU
Tulane
UNLV
Boise
Memphis
Those rumors are horsebleep as long as the B12 plays a round robin schedule.
If other conferences are whining about the B12 format, then they were fools to expand beyond 10 schools. And sometime within the next ten years, they will all regret expanding beyond 10.
.....and none of those combinations make it worthwhile for the B12 to expand.
Looks like we need to steal a couple teams versus this list. Looks like someone in B12 needs to win a champiuonship in order to steal those two teams. We have nbeen less than svelte in the past few years for championships in B12. Bbball in B12 has been better than our fball in last three years.
- Status
