ESPN really nurtured its baseball coverage over the years. They used to be the go to for highlights every night.
ESPN actively planning to offer linear feed directly to consumers, has deals with two leagues
- Thread starter glrush
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 281
- Views 20K
The FCC is controlled by lobbyists. There’s the problem.
- The only smart thing Fay Vincent ever said was "what the h*** else are they (ESPN) going to show all summer?" That was a long time ago. ESPN, having killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, is soon to be out of cash, so MLB would be wise to get away from it, rather than be a creditor in the upcoming ESPN bankruptcy.
- As in hockey, we are seeing in MLB the unintended side effect of too many out-of-market streaming options on the network packages. Why watch Game X on ESPN on Tuesday at 7 when Game Y is on ESPN+ on Wednesday at 8 and is a better game? For the (relative) pittance that comes in from these packages, MLB and NHL have harmed the much more lucrative nationalized game packages on real TV.
- NBA. The essence of ESPN's woke identity is the NBA. It is 95%, year long, of what its (ratings well under 800K people) daytime sports argument filler screamers scream about. It is the center of ESPN's pushing of the Disney political agenda. Blunt fact? The NBA regular season is JUST NOT THAT POPULAR. It just isn't. Look at the ratings. Ratings do not lie. But, ESPN, and probably WBD, will pay up. They would do better with 30 for 30 and pro rodeo. The question is will some streamer actually be foolish enough to get involved in the NBA. The 99% who have zero interest in it really don't want to pay for it.
- As in hockey, we are seeing in MLB the unintended side effect of too many out-of-market streaming options on the network packages. Why watch Game X on ESPN on Tuesday at 7 when Game Y is on ESPN+ on Wednesday at 8 and is a better game? For the (relative) pittance that comes in from these packages, MLB and NHL have harmed the much more lucrative nationalized game packages on real TV.
- NBA. The essence of ESPN's woke identity is the NBA. It is 95%, year long, of what its (ratings well under 800K people) daytime sports argument filler screamers scream about. It is the center of ESPN's pushing of the Disney political agenda. Blunt fact? The NBA regular season is JUST NOT THAT POPULAR. It just isn't. Look at the ratings. Ratings do not lie. But, ESPN, and probably WBD, will pay up. They would do better with 30 for 30 and pro rodeo. The question is will some streamer actually be foolish enough to get involved in the NBA. The 99% who have zero interest in it really don't want to pay for it.
ESPN is not going bankrupt. It’s still a huge piece of Disneys portfolio. The NBA is probably their most important property. I doubt any league will ever get the big payday again outside of the NFL.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,392
- 18,491
Ratings are a tad better then MLB-
An average of 1.59 million viewers tuned in to watch NBA regular season games across ABC, ESPN and TNT in the 2022/23 season.
NBA viewership flat for '22-23 on TNT, ABC, ESPN
NBA viewership this season was flat compared to the 2021-2022 campaign, with regular-season matchups across ABC, ESPN and TNT averaging 1.6 million viewers.
www.sportsbusinessjournal.com
ESPN’s Major League Baseball game viewership is up seven percent from last year, according to Nielsen. ESPN’s MLB game telecasts are averaging 1,517,000 viewers,
ESPN’s 2023 Major League Baseball Game Viewership Up Seven Percent From Last Year
ESPN’s Major League Baseball game viewership is up seven percent from last year, according to Nielsen. ESPN’s MLB game telecasts are averaging 1,517,000 viewers, up from 1,419,000 viewers at this time in 2022. Viewership is inclusive of ESPN’s weekly Sunday Night Baseball franchise, as well as...
espnpressroom.com
- ESPN, is going bankrupt, almost certainly. Its business model is just like the RSNs, it is just not quite as far down the path. Streaming, and the idiot idea of a "dual distribution model" just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't work. Less people wish to pay for the material than it costs to make. Like most all streaming. Disney's mis-management is killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. The bundle not only protected the consumer, it made Disney obscenely rich, funding many of the acquisitions (Marvel, Lucas Film, Henson, etc.) it had to make, since it long ago lost any creative spark of it own.
- NBA NATIONAL ratings and MLB NATIONAL ratings are about the same. MLB regionally is VASTLY more popular. 20 teams get local RSN ratings below 2.0, nine get less than a 1.0, and those are core market measurement (i.e. what the Cavs get in Cleveland, it would be yet worse if they included Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Huntington, Lexington, etc.)
- But, whatever 1.5M people. Meaning something like 365M don't want it. Which is exactly why NBA, or any sport not called NFL, on either a theoretical ESPN streamer or a current (money losing already) streamer doesn't work. Simple math. 1.5M divided by the $8B year they want (and, BTW, an ad on a regular season NBA game will cost you maybe $15K, its not relevant) is $540/year. Just for the NBA. It doesn't work.
- NBA NATIONAL ratings and MLB NATIONAL ratings are about the same. MLB regionally is VASTLY more popular. 20 teams get local RSN ratings below 2.0, nine get less than a 1.0, and those are core market measurement (i.e. what the Cavs get in Cleveland, it would be yet worse if they included Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Huntington, Lexington, etc.)
- But, whatever 1.5M people. Meaning something like 365M don't want it. Which is exactly why NBA, or any sport not called NFL, on either a theoretical ESPN streamer or a current (money losing already) streamer doesn't work. Simple math. 1.5M divided by the $8B year they want (and, BTW, an ad on a regular season NBA game will cost you maybe $15K, its not relevant) is $540/year. Just for the NBA. It doesn't work.
People don’t want most of the stuff they have with cable but they still pay it. More people watch ESPN then let’s say HGTV or Hallmark. Is it over priced yes, but so is everything in this world. Streaming alacart is the future. Not cable.
EXACTLY. The magic of the consumer protecting bundle. A wonderful thing. You pay a little bit for content you don't want, so do I, and writ large all across the nation (and beyond) ALL the content for EVERYONE gets made and EVERYONE is entertained. Wonderful.
But, with a la carte, since no one thing not called NFL is actually popular enough, after the current (and foolish) acquisition mode ends and the bubble pops, there is almost nothing left. Less people wish to pay for any one thing than it costs to make. This is why streaming is bleeding money by the gallons per second. It is why it always will. And, eventually, why there will be almost no serious content produced. Just reruns, cheaply acquired foreign material, trashsports, more reruns, and cheaply made Hallmark style movies (what Netflix is all about) so filled with toxic femineity the squeak. And more reruns. A vast wasteland.
So explain the drop in traditional broadcast ratings. They pump money into shows just as much. If networks can’t survive who can.
The "bundle" is one of the most anti-consumer rip-offs foisted on the public. I love watching it die.
But isnt it be the same? To get NBC you need Peacock? ABC need Disney? CBS you need Paramount? and for Fox you need Fox nation?
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,392
- 18,491
Not even close to the same, for example when we moved to Florida, if we had gotten a cable/satellite service, I would be forced to then have the RSN and pay that fee, I have no desire to watch any team from here, so why should I pay.
But outside the bundle, I could get Bally’s streaming version or not, my choice.
Then add in all the rerun channels you are forced to pay for and never watch, where the same content is on Pluto for free, but with DirecTV, you are forced to pay for them.
Go though your channels, all the rerun channels, the duplication of channels ( like 3 FXs, 4 Disneys, etc), get rid of all those, you would end up with 30 Channels that produce new content.
ESPN is the REASON the College Bowl system went to hell.ESPN may drop MLB National Games because of money.
As I posted before, both the NBA and College Football’s (soon to be expanded) Playoff contracts are coming up, since profits are down because of 30 Million subs leaving ( and more everyday), they have to make hard decisions.
College Football Playoffs should be a no brainer, but that is really only one month of programming, will they make up the , soon to be, extremely high rights fees in advertising and subs.
Those who run the playoffs wants NFL type money, hence why they were going to split it up amongst different providers
NBA is a tough one, they want $5-6 Billion in the new contract, I do not believe it is worth that, but it does attract that under 54 age range that Advertisers love, MLB does not at the level the NBA does.
MLB is even tougher, but I do not believe ESPN will give it up, what else would they have on during the summer.
My guess, keep MLB, try and keep some of the NBA and only some games from College Football Playoffs ( how many depends on the price) and they get split up like it used to be for Bowl Games.
Cord Cutters/Nevers/Dying is really affecting them, they could not afford the Big Ten Deal ( $1 Billion a year from 3 Broadcasters/Streamers) and let them go.
ESPN May Drop MLB Games But Reportedly Wants To Stream Local MLB Games In a New ESPN+ Tier | Cord Cutters News
The regular 2023 MLB season is now over, and it is one more reminder that Disney will have to decide if it wants to renew its contract with the MLB for Sunday Night games when the 2025 season ends. According to a report from the NY Post, Disney has an out in its contract that […]cordcuttersnews.com
They made a new bowl for every product and watered down the system so bad, nobody but the teams fans watch Most of them.
Without the bundle..the conten providers don't make as much profit thus they will make cheaper content that will only satisfy the tastes of a few
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,392
- 18,491
this is true. I also don't think they ever thought about the micro level that half the new bowls they birthed into existence were (and still are) money losers. They always just played the averages and looked at the big money overall. In the end, you'd be hard pressed to convince me the El Paso Bowl or the chewy.com Dog Bowl ever made money as a standalone enterprise for the network (definitely lost money for the schools playing)
Hell, Some teams (maybe more than Some) LOST Money by going to the bowl games.
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 136) Show all
- glrush
- DS0816
- Bruce
- dperez
- ToxaMan
- cosmo_kramer
- dhpeeple1
- plw
- Yespage
- brice52
- phlatwound
- hwkn
- ronman
- Elsguy
- MikeD-C05
- DRCars
- jorgek
- klang
- mc6809e
- Bobby
- meStevo
- savarese04
- ncted
- dishdude
- Hookemfins
- Mr Tony
- evetsmc
- Juan
- Keith Brannen
- Tecmo SB Guy
- gjc
- Rolling Joe
- Ronnie-
- Don in CT
- forecheck
- AZ.
- SamCdbs
- TheKrell
- clownin72
- Bilbo1
- osu1991
- johnr475
- jdkrug
- Altitudinous
- PioneerDJ
- MartyDe
- metzmda
- Joe The Dragon
- nogmxprt
- N5XZS
- ibanez_ax
- satjay
- FTA4PA
- Alexrules11
- fjwag
- mrc54
- jasondeanny
- tv1952
- Russ8594
- Comptech
- jgags6
