Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[isucy86]

People were stupid to ever think streaming was going to remain cheaper than cable/satellite - it was simply artificially low pricing to speed the transition. If you want to get everything you had on cable/satellite, you're going to end up spending the same or more in another few years.

Us for example:
Hulu Live TV no ads (highest tier) + Extra Screens, Sports, Entertainment, and Learning addons
Discovery+
Disney+
ESPN+
MAX
History Vault
Paramount
Peacock
Prime
Netflix
Apple TV+
Probably something else

In the long-run, prices for the same amount of content will likely be higher because you don't have overall packages subsidizing certain channels or addons. Granted, a lot of people won't subscribe to so many things and/or for the entire year.

I tend to agree, that its a scramble by every media company to develop a streaming platform. IMO the multi-channel streamers like Hulu+, YTTV, etc. made a mistake by trying to mimic the cable/satellite model by offering 100+ channels. Multi-channel platforms should allow subscribers to ala carte the subscription services their customers want.

I look at my own viewing and I might watch 10 channels on FUBO-TV. My must haves are ESPN in the fall/winter & Marquee/Golf Channel over the spring/summer.

Subscription based live sports will become the core distribution channel in the next decade. Sure games will still be shown on the 4 Networks, but the bulk of games will be on a subscription service. Once ESPN makes the direct-to-consumer transition, then others will follow (FS1/2, ACCN, SECN, BTN)

 

[SCNCY]

People were stupid to ever think streaming was going to remain cheaper than cable/satellite - it was simply artificially low pricing to speed the transition. If you want to get everything you had on cable/satellite, you're going to end up spending the same or more in another few years.

Us for example:
Hulu Live TV no ads (highest tier) + Extra Screens, Sports, Entertainment, and Learning addons
Discovery+
Disney+
ESPN+
MAX
History Vault
Paramount
Peacock
Prime
Netflix
Apple TV+
Probably something else

In the long-run, prices for the same amount of content will likely be higher because you don't have overall packages subsidizing certain channels or addons. Granted, a lot of people won't subscribe to so many things and/or for the entire year.

I think what most people had in mind was being able to select the channels you’d want, a la carte. I think people see what the networks charge the cable companies for the redistribution fee and go, based on those prices, I can save a lot of money by only choosing the 5-10 channels I actually use.

However, most don’t realize that those channels are branded together and to get one , you have to get the package. For example, to get espn, owned by Disney, you probably also have to get freeform, also owned by Disney.

 

[CycloneErik]

People were stupid to ever think streaming was going to remain cheaper than cable/satellite - it was simply artificially low pricing to speed the transition. If you want to get everything you had on cable/satellite, you're going to end up spending the same or more in another few years.

Us for example:
Hulu Live TV no ads (highest tier) + Extra Screens, Sports, Entertainment, and Learning addons
Discovery+
Disney+
ESPN+
MAX
History Vault
Paramount
Peacock
Prime
Netflix
Apple TV+
Probably something else

In the long-run, prices for the same amount of content will likely be higher because you don't have overall packages subsidizing certain channels or addons. Granted, a lot of people won't subscribe to so many things and/or for the entire year.

I fudge ours by leaving out Prime, since we got it prior to their streaming video.
Yes, I'm completely aware that it's not real genuine accounting.

We also cut YTTV for a while, so ours is generally low right now. I don't want to ruin that picture by adding in Prime.

 

[KnappShack]

I fudge ours by leaving out Prime, since we got it prior to their streaming video.
Yes, I'm completely aware that it's not real genuine accounting.

We also cut YTTV for a while, so ours is generally low right now. I don't want to ruin that picture by adding in Prime.

The programming on YouTube TV and other services is beyond bad.

We've gotten trials thinking we'd add live TV and it's all so bad and really hasn't changed.

There's no appointment TV. America Pickers and Skinwalker Ranch aren't drawing me in. Live TV is basically sports and that's it.

College basketball lost me. Baseball lost me. College football is trying to lose me.

 

[CycloneErik]

The programming on YouTube TV and other services is beyond bad.

We've gotten trials thinking we'd add live TV and it's all so bad and really hasn't changed.

There's no appointment TV. America Pickers and Skinwalker Ranch aren't drawing me in. Live TV is basically sports and that's it.

College basketball lost me. Baseball lost me. College football is trying to lose me.

I'll be looking around basketball season. I work at nights, so that's a lot of games I'm not paying to see.
What I would do just depends on weekend games and maybe whether I'd stay awake anyway.

 

[jctisu]

Translation=>This is ESPN and Fox trying to dictate so that new entrants like Apple and Amazon are deterred from making competitive bids for the new CFP deal.

If true, this will be time for Yormark, Phillips and other CFP commissioners to tell the B10 and SEC to go eff themselves.

This sport is so healthy isn’t it?

 

[2speedy1]

HCS is not what id call legit sports journalism.

I guess that is a matter of opinion....I mean they are just as legit as Conzano, Wilner, CF, Finebaum, Mandel and many others. They are biased towards the Big 12 etc, but so are a lot of others towards their conferences/teams.

 

[IceCyIce]

Fast Forward to 55 second mark, Add a BY face to Billy the kids and you have the answer.

 

[MountainManHawk]

That is some bad reporting. The journalist cited just says that Big12 shouldn't stand in Big10 and SEC's way.

But the article doesn't say what Big10 & SEC want from CFP. Or how Big12's needs will be different.

Barring the Big10 and SEC requiring a set number of their schools in the playoff, not sure there is a power play that can benefit Big10 or SEC over Big12 or ACC.

I guess the SEC and Big10 can threaten to break away and just have their top 8 or so teams play each other and crown a champion that way and abandon the 12 team playoff altogether.

But there would be anti-trust concerns and it would of course all depend on what Fox and ESPN would pay for those games compared to the status quo.

My guess is it’s mostly bluster to make sure that the format moves to one where there are just 12 at large bids and no more auto-bids for conferences.

 

[CloneLawman]

I guess the SEC and Big10 can threaten to break away and just have their top 8 or so teams play each other and crown a champion that way and abandon the 12 team playoff altogether.

But there would be anti-trust concerns and it would of course all depend on what Fox and ESPN would pay for those games compared to the status quo.

My guess is it’s mostly bluster to make sure that the format moves to one where there are just 12 at large bids and no more auto-bids for conferences.

**** Iowa. **** the B1G. **** the SEC.

If they do what they threaten, they will experience unexpected consequences.

 

[helechopper]

Burn it all down.

 

[MountainManHawk]

**** Iowa. **** the B1G. **** the SEC.

If they do what they threaten, they will experience unexpected consequences.

To be clear, I think the odds of that really happening are very low. It’s probably just something they are threatening to make sure they get their way. And I would expect the Big12 and ACC will try to call their bluff.

 

[isucy86]

I guess the SEC and Big10 can threaten to break away and just have their top 8 or so teams play each other and crown a champion that way and abandon the 12 team playoff altogether.

But there would be anti-trust concerns and it would of course all depend on what Fox and ESPN would pay for those games compared to the status quo.

My guess is it’s mostly bluster to make sure that the format moves to one where there are just 12 at large bids and no more auto-bids for conferences.

I am sure both conferences have had "their people" crunch numbers. But how many losses would the 5th place team have in a 16 team SEC or 18 team Big10? Sure the Big10 & SEC can point to their Brands. But do fans feel an 8-4 Texas or Oregon is better than a 10-2 Big12 or ACC team? If CFP is about brands, then CFB will take MLB's path to being a niche sport.

There are playoff requirements Big10 & SEC can play hardball. But the Big12 can push that there be a requirement for playoff eligible schools to play 9 Conference & 10 Power Conference games. The Big10 would probably agree to that, while the SEC would push back. And the ACC might sit on the fence to make sure they have a place at CFP table.

I think the area where SEC and Big10 might push their perceived advantage is much bigger payouts for CFP teams or the entire $2B is paid out to the 12 playoff team's conferences. Similar to NCAA Hoops Tournament.

 

[LonelyCyKC]

People were stupid to ever think streaming was going to remain cheaper than cable/satellite - it was simply artificially low pricing to speed the transition. If you want to get everything you had on cable/satellite, you're going to end up spending the same or more in another few years.

Us for example:
Hulu Live TV no ads (highest tier) + Extra Screens, Sports, Entertainment, and Learning addons
Discovery+
Disney+
ESPN+
MAX
History Vault
Paramount
Peacock
Prime
Netflix
Apple TV+
Probably something else

In the long-run, prices for the same amount of content will likely be higher because you don't have overall packages subsidizing certain channels or addons. Granted, a lot of people won't subscribe to so many things and/or for the entire year.

And then we have Roku so we can watch public TV programs. Dr. Who, Red Green, Dead Like Me, Midsummer Murders, and others.

 

[LonelyCyKC]

I guess the SEC and Big10 can threaten to break away and just have their top 8 or so teams play each other and crown a champion that way and abandon the 12 team playoff altogether.

But there would be anti-trust concerns and it would of course all depend on what Fox and ESPN would pay for those games compared to the status quo.

My guess is it’s mostly bluster to make sure that the format moves to one where there are just 12 at large bids and no more auto-bids for conferences.

That way six SEC teams can play six B1G teams and fight among each other. Then all the rest of us can have our own 16 team playoff at campus sites and the championship at Arrowhead in KC.

 

[LonelyCyKC]

People were stupid to ever think streaming was going to remain cheaper than cable/satellite - it was simply artificially low pricing to speed the transition. If you want to get everything you had on cable/satellite, you're going to end up spending the same or more in another few years.

Us for example:
Hulu Live TV no ads (highest tier) + Extra Screens, Sports, Entertainment, and Learning addons
Discovery+
Disney+
ESPN+
MAX
History Vault
Paramount
Peacock
Prime
Netflix
Apple TV+
Probably something else

In the long-run, prices for the same amount of content will likely be higher because you don't have overall packages subsidizing certain channels or addons. Granted, a lot of people won't subscribe to so many things and/or for the entire year.

Let's see, that is 11 channels at say $15 per month each, plus $50 per month internet connection..... that is $215, which is more than my Dish subscription.

 

[simply1]

Let's see, that is 11 channels at say $15 per month each, plus $50 per month internet connection..... that is $215, which is more than my Dish subscription.

You wouldn’t have internet along with dish?

 

[aeroclone]

I guess the SEC and Big10 can threaten to break away and just have their top 8 or so teams play each other and crown a champion that way and abandon the 12 team playoff altogether.

But there would be anti-trust concerns and it would of course all depend on what Fox and ESPN would pay for those games compared to the status quo.

My guess is it’s mostly bluster to make sure that the format moves to one where there are just 12 at large bids and no more auto-bids for conferences.

I've been reading about anti-trust concerns on this board sine megathread 1 over a decade ago. Nothing has ever come of it. And nothing ever will.

 

[Cmonwhatarewedoinghereman]

Let's see, that is 11 channels at say $15 per month each, plus $50 per month internet connection..... that is $215, which is more than my Dish subscription.

But you have dish? 2014 called and they want their satellite dish back.

 

[HouClone]

To be clear, I think the odds of that really happening are very low. It’s probably just something they are threatening to make sure they get their way. And I would expect the Big12 and ACC will try to call their bluff.

Yep, call their bluff. Sure, bigger brands in SEC and Big 10, but ESPN and Fox have vested interest in other conferences and they likely will be ones broadcasting the CFP games. Plus, the little guy makes for good drama so expect an opening still for the non Power 4.