CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

[skibum]

If you lived in a location with any choice of provider and channel package you never really "paid for channels you didn't want." That claim is a canard, and always has been.

But the reason it's a canard is hard to grasp, so the myth lives on.

Pretend you were only ever interested in 2 channels: espn and espn2. You could get a lineup from provider A with both for $65/month. Or you could get a basic lineup with espn from carrier B for $45 plus a sports package for $15 total $60.

So you pick "B."

Well, you just proved that you, as a consumer, are willing to pay $60/mo for espn and espn2.

Do you honestly think there's a world where a company is going to provide that to you for $40, and leave that $20/mo revenue just sitting there?

But, more often than not, it's a little more complicated than just wanting one or two channels.

So, what happens is that providers find out your willing to pay $60/mo, and then they put together packages of channels to compete for that $60. And because there are lots of different consumers, they try and put together packages that will pull in lots of different households.

The bottom line is that you (and millions of other consumers) have demonstrated that you are willing to pay $X/month for some collection of channels.

If there were a true "a la carte" option, guess what? There'd be a dynamic pricing model where you'd still end up paying the same per month, because that's how they maximize revenue. Only in that world, you'd maybe be happier because you aren't "paying for channels you don't watch."

But you're not, and you never have been.

You're paying for the channels you watch. If you didn't want to watch them, you wouldn't pay at all. All the other channels are just things the sales guy threw in for free.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

If you lived in a location with any choice of provider and channel package you never really "paid for channels you didn't want." That claim is a canard, and always has been.

Wut? Isnt ESPN part of the basic cable package? Or always in the package that also includes CNN, MSNBC, Food Network, etc?

My mom has paid for ESPN every year she’s had it for a couple of decades and shes NEVER watched it.

 

[Bison]

You think UW and UO would have an easier path to the CFP in the B1G? Have you really thought that thru? How did TCU get in? Because they were in easier conference to play in.

That was with the idea of UO & UW staying for easier CFP access. No way they will sniff the CFP in the B1G...not sure where you got the idea that I said UO & UW would have easier CFP access in the B1G.

 

[skibum]

Wut? Isnt ESPN part of the basic cable package? Or always in the package that also includes CNN, MSNBC, Food Network, etc?

My mom has paid for ESPN every year she’s had it for a couple of decades and shes NEVER watched it.

So?

She's paying for the channels she does watch. The sales guy threw in espn for free.

Presuming she has options (which is a big presumption) there is likely no world where she could get the channels she does watch for less than she's proven herself willing to pay.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

So?

She's paying for the channels she does watch. The sales guy threw in espn for free.

Presuming she has options (which is a big presumption) there is likely no world where she could get the channels she does watch for less than she's proven herself willing to pay.

ESPN still gets its due$ if the cable sales guy threw it in or no. Thats the model that enabled them to bid up the SEC to the money it is now.

 

[skibum]

ESPN still gets its due$ if the cable sales guy threw it in or no. Thats the model that enabled them to bid up the SEC to the money it is now.

I don't think you understand my point at all.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

That was with the idea of UO & UW staying for easier CFP access. No way they will sniff the CFP in the B1G...not sure where you got the idea that I said UO & UW would have easier CFP access in the B1G.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I don't think you understand my point at all.

Your point was that its a canard. I dont agree.

 

[skibum]

Your point was that its a canard. I dont agree.

And I explained why, but you obviously don't understand the explenation.

The cost structure of the product provider is 100% irrelevant to the point.

 

[BlackNGold]

If you lived in a location with any choice of provider and channel package you never really "paid for channels you didn't want." That claim is a canard, and always has been.

But the reason it's a canard is hard to grasp, so the myth lives on.

Pretend you were only ever interested in 2 channels: espn and espn2. You could get a lineup from provider A with both for $65/month. Or you could get a basic lineup with espn from carrier B for $45 plus a sports package for $15 total $60.

So you pick "B."

Well, you just proved that you, as a consumer, are willing to pay $60/mo for espn and espn2.

Do you honestly think there's a world where a company is going to provide that to you for $40, and leave that $20/mo revenue just sitting there?

But, more often than not, it's a little more complicated than just wanting one or two channels.

So, what happens is that providers find out your willing to pay $60/mo, and then they put together packages of channels to compete for that $60. And because there are lots of different consumers, they try and put together packages that will pull in lots of different households.

The bottom line is that you (and millions of other consumers) have demonstrated that you are willing to pay $X/month for some collection of channels.

If there were a true "a la carte" option, guess what? There'd be a dynamic pricing model where you'd still end up paying the same per month, because that's how they maximize revenue. Only in that world, you'd maybe be happier because you aren't "paying for channels you don't watch."

But you're not, and you never have been.

You're paying for the channels you watch. If you didn't want to watch them, you wouldn't pay at all. All the other channels are just things the sales guy threw in for free.

Skibum - I just don't agree with you on this one. I get your point but the counter point is millions of cable subscribers are dropping it to move to more a la carte packages and paying for what they want. None of my kids have linear programming packages - they have Hulu, HBO, Netflicks, Disney +, -none of which are included in a base cable package anyway. So they are paying for what they want to watch. Seems like millions of others feel the same way.

 

[Creebuzz]

And I explained why, but you obviously don't understand the explenation.

The cost structure of the product provider is 100% irrelevant to the point.

I agree with you. If people are willing to pay $65 for the few channels they watch, then that is the market price for those channels.

My counterpoint would be that those fees were derived under duress in a structure of near monopoly capitalism. You could also say that a person interested in scripted TV was willing to pay the $65 for AMC, Syfy, and Lifetime. However, when a credible alternative like Netflix was made available, it reset the market price to $10-$15.

On the second point of dynamic pricing, I agree with you that fees will simply rise under an a la carte scenario. However, I disagree that cost structure is irrelevant. Viewers can now easily switch what type of entertainment content they want because there is true competition outside the monopoly. As a result, I would expect expense to come down, meaning payments to sports leagues or actors salaries will have to be adjusted downward to meet the expected clearing price for the consumer. There is a lot of balancing out to do.

As long as Paramount, Peacock, Amazon, Apple, HBO Time Warner, Disney, and Netflix remain independent competitors in a streaming environment, the consumer will benefit.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

And I explained why, but you obviously don't understand the explenation.

The cost structure of the product provider is 100% irrelevant to the point.

Sorry. You Mtn’d that post and forced me to re-read it.

what happens is that providers find out your willing to pay $60/mo, and then they put together packages of channels to compete for that $60.

I agree. However, cable satellite allowed themselves to become bloated. It just kept growing. Charlie Ergen spotted this quite early and saw the rather skinny SlingTV idea that had only the most popular channels could be a thing.

The bottom line is that you (and millions of other consumers) have demonstrated that you are willing to pay $X/month for some collection of channels.

For me I got for $75 what used to be $135 at DTV

If there were a true "a la carte" option, guess what? There'd be a dynamic pricing model where you'd still end up paying the same per month, because that's how they maximize revenue. Only in that world, you'd maybe be happier because you aren't "paying for channels you don't watch."

But you're not, and you never have been.

BUT this is what some streamers are testing. Paramount. Peacock.

As for Disney, the move to one app for ESPN and Hulu and Disney+ it says to me their Silo of content is pretty weak and theyre not getting subs beyond what they have now.

 

[Highlander]

Oregon, Washington 'Vetted' And 'Cleared' To Join The Big Ten According To New Report

Conference realignment continues to be the story of college football, with the Big Ten leading the charge.

www.outkick.com

I find it genuinely bizarre you seem to be actively rooting for the demise of the Pac-12.

As a CU fan, I want them to be able to pick the best option for the school’s near term future, not be forced into a direction because the Pac-12 implodes.

The Pac-12 finding a way to cobble together a package that is good enough would be better than being forced to sign a GoR with the Big 12.

 

[skibum]

Skibum - I just don't agree with you on this one. I get your point but the counter point is millions of cable subscribers are dropping it to move to more a la carte packages and paying for what they want. None of my kids have linear programming packages - they have Hulu, HBO, Netflicks, Disney +, -none of which are included in a base cable package anyway. So they are paying for what they want to watch. Seems like millions of others feel the same way.

I think my point is that a lot of them are still paying about $60/mo (total across all subscriptions) for their content.

At the end of the day, I just don't believe that the consumer will capture all that much savings from the changes.

Sports fans and old people seem to be about the only folks who regularly watch "linear" channels. Hell, even many "linear" channels have adopted a "binge watch" format outside of daytime tv hours (and some even within): just look at Friday night on food network for an example.

Random channel could produce their content for advertising dollars and, say, 2 cents a month per cable TV subscriber. That 2 cents times millions of homes added up. But most of those households didn't watch that programming.

Now, if the cable package were killed off today, they might be able to get one out of every 50 households to pay $1/month, and they'd be good to go.

And this is where I think Miami was getting hung up thinking about his mom "paying for" espn. The odds are that by the time his mom pays the new charge of $1-10/month for each of the channels she does watch, she'll be paying exactly what she is now - except Miami won't be able to watch espn on her cable box when comes to visit, he'll have to bring his own $30+/month sub to espn with him.

I hear @Creebuzz comment about the old pricing being set in monopolies. But, there hasn't been true monopolies for these packages in most (not all) of the country for decades (basically since dtv and dish came on the scene) - so I'm not sure how much of the pricing was them vs consumer willingness/ability to pay.

Where the monopoly is, and will remain and solidify, is at the content creators: the HBOs, AMCs, etc. The sports channels also get monopolies: you have to go to them to watch certain games.

Again, the bottom line is that I don't the consumers, on net, would/will realize any cost savings at all from a move to pure a la cart. Some may realize some savings, and some will end up paying more.

I really don't think many people will save much vs what they were already willing to pay.

 

[NW Buff]

That was with the idea of UO & UW staying for easier CFP access. No way they will sniff the CFP in the B1G...not sure where you got the idea that I said UO & UW would have easier CFP access in the B1G.

You’re assuming that the rules for the cfp remain the same. I seriously doubt they will

 

[Bison]

You're paying for the channels you watch. If you didn't want to watch them, you wouldn't pay at all. All the other channels are just things the sales guy threw in for free.

Agree with that.

Given that ESPN+ is $10/mo and assume that ESPN Direct To Consumer is $20/mo which might be too low. Disney could bundle that for $25/mo and I think that is even too low but I think that is more than what Disney takes in per month on cable TV.

They can't charge too much because people have other avenues for their entertainment. I am an avid video gamer and I am even questioning how much college football I'm going to watch next year when they finally bring back the video game version of college football from EA Sports. And the video game market dwarfs the television market these days. You got movies, YouTube, etc.

There's NFL+ and NFL Sunday Ticket. With NFL+'s $9.99 tier, you can watch games on demand and for live games, I'd be limited to the Broncos since I'm in Denver. Sunday Ticket is essentially the same thing but you can watch all games live and it just costs more. Right now I'd just do NFL+.

With the ESPN stuff, I can watch many game replays as long as those were not the ESPN family of channels including ESPN2, ESPNU, SEC Network, ACC Network, etc because you would have to pay for cable TV in order to watch the game replays. The NFL requires just one subscription while at this point, ESPN would require two subscriptions (ESPN+ and cable TV) to replay any game on the ESPN family of networks.

I haven't watched MLS soccer on Apple TV+ but the nice thing about that is no more local blackouts so I can watch any Rapids game on demand which I wasn't able to do with ESPN+. That local blackout stuff has been good for cable companies too. I might start that MLS Apple TV+ subscription next week.

That's why the P12 media rights negotiations are such a big deal. At this point, it appears that CU is going to be on ESPN+ for its third tier rights in either the P12 or B12. I think that explains why the P12N was such a huge failure because people weren't going to spend the equivalent of a month's cable TV bill in order to watch those third tier games.

 

[Goose]

I find it genuinely bizarre you seem to be actively rooting for the demise of the Pac-12.

As a CU fan, I want them to be able to pick the best option for the school’s near term future, not be forced into a direction because the Pac-12 implodes.

The Pac-12 finding a way to cobble together a package that is good enough would be better than being forced to sign a GoR with the Big 12.

Some people would rather be right than have good things happen to them.

 

[Darth Snow]

Some people would rather have their political biases win than have good things happen to them.

FIFY

 

[Bison]

I find it genuinely bizarre you seem to be actively rooting for the demise of the Pac-12.

As a CU fan, I want them to be able to pick the best option for the school’s near term future, not be forced into a direction because the Pac-12 implodes.

The Pac-12 finding a way to cobble together a package that is good enough would be better than being forced to sign a GoR with the Big 12.

Bolded is a solid argument against going to the B12 if they are going to force us to sign a GoR. I don't think the remaining P12 schools will sign a GOR along with a new media rights deal this time around. OU & UT had to pay $50M each to get out of the B12 GoR to join the SEC.

I was very much in favor of CU leaving the P12 for the B12 but right now I'm in the stay camp.

You’re assuming that the rules for the cfp remain the same. I seriously doubt they will

Of course they will change over time.

 

[Creebuzz]

I view cable and satellite companies as aggregators of content. And I believe they engaged in price fixing to some degree by offering the same bundle at effectively the same price.

New streaming aggregators like Fubo and Sling upset the apple cart by offering skinny bundles at a lower cost. They captured market share with that.

Direct to consumer streaming is where the aggregator model falls apart. Paramount, Apple, Peacoack, HBO Time Warner, Amazon, Netflix, and Disney all create or control their own content. (Fox will eventually be added to this group).

For the sports fan, this will be very expensive if you want it all. If you just watch Notre Dame, you will buy Peacock only. If you only watch CU and PAC 12, you will buy whoever holds those rights. That’s where it probably remains cheaper for the consumer.

As far as scripted TV, I see a real battle over content where these studios have to deliver steady content, which is very expensive. I see cost control measures coming into play here, where actors, writers, and technical staff will see salary cuts. The writers strike now (or more precisely its length) will be telling.

 

[InTheBuff]

I find it genuinely bizarre you seem to be actively rooting for the demise of the Pac-12.

As a CU fan, I want them to be able to pick the best option for the school’s near term future, not be forced into a direction because the Pac-12 implodes.

The Pac-12 finding a way to cobble together a package that is good enough would be better than being forced to sign a GoR with the Big 12.

The realist in me (I'm kind of a glass half empty guy) doesn't see how a good deal gets presented.
I also know Oregon and Washington are GONE. Is it in a few months or a few years ? They gone.
I'm ready to move on till 2030 and see how the audition went for CU.

IF GK somehow pulls a good deal out of his butt I'll be the first one to give him kudos and eat some crow.

 

[Creebuzz]

The ESPN exclusive negotiating window closed in early October 2022. It’s been six months without a deal.

Honestly, I also believe it’s pretty likely CU winds up in the Big 12 too.

Pac 12 leadership over the past dozen years is a case study in poor management.

Now we wait and see what sh!t sandwich we have to eat.

 

[manhattanbuff]

I recently tried to cut the TV cord and keep my same main viewing options for less.

First, without the bundle, my highest speed internet plan goes up $20/month.

Second, without my TV plan, replacing the streaming content I get with my TV plan now is something I have to pay to receive.

HBO Max (soon to be Max) is $12.50/mo
Showtime/Paramount+ $10.00/mo
Disney Bundle (adding ESPN) $12.99/mo
Starz add-on $8.99/mo
AMC+ $8.99/mo

There’s a question about some other services too. In the end, I’m not saving anything and I have to deal with ensuring all of my ala carte services are handled.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I recently tried to cut the TV cord and keep my same main viewing options for less.

First, without the bundle, my highest speed internet plan goes up $20/month.

Second, without my TV plan, replacing the streaming content I get with my TV plan now is something I have to pay to receive.

HBO Max (soon to be Max) is $12.50/mo
Showtime/Paramount+ $10.00/mo
Disney Bundle (adding ESPN) $12.99/mo
Starz add-on $8.99/mo
AMC+ $8.99/mo

There’s a question about some other services too. In the end, I’m not saving anything and I have to deal with ensuring all of my ala carte services are handled.

And for live sports, you're watching a delayed feed and completely reliant on your internet connection.

Full blown cord cutting for live sports viewers just isn't quite ready, yet

 

[Tony G.]

I recently tried to cut the TV cord and keep my same main viewing options for less.

First, without the bundle, my highest speed internet plan goes up $20/month.

Second, without my TV plan, replacing the streaming content I get with my TV plan now is something I have to pay to receive.

HBO Max (soon to be Max) is $12.50/mo
Showtime/Paramount+ $10.00/mo
Disney Bundle (adding ESPN) $12.99/mo
Starz add-on $8.99/mo
AMC+ $8.99/mo

There’s a question about some other services too. In the end, I’m not saving anything and I have to deal with ensuring all of my ala carte services are handled.

the exact same experience I had. When you take into account the increased internet cost I wasn't really saving much. I'm sure I was saving $20/month, but when I took into account the hassle from switching between apps and my wife complaining because she didn't know how to access things, etc. It wasn't worth it to me and I ended the experiment.

 

[Bison]

MSN

www.msn.com

Basically the same stuff. Brett McMurphy is saying that Dodd's reporting is accurate.

I'm feeling the same way as some guys here that CU is headed to the Big 12. If the tweet below is accurate...WE GONE!

 

[Creebuzz]

I recently tried to cut the TV cord and keep my same main viewing options for less.

First, without the bundle, my highest speed internet plan goes up $20/month.

Second, without my TV plan, replacing the streaming content I get with my TV plan now is something I have to pay to receive.

HBO Max (soon to be Max) is $12.50/mo
Showtime/Paramount+ $10.00/mo
Disney Bundle (adding ESPN) $12.99/mo
Starz add-on $8.99/mo
AMC+ $8.99/mo

There’s a question about some other services too. In the end, I’m not saving anything and I have to deal with ensuring all of my ala carte services are handled.

And Fox. Priceless.

 

[GoBuffs08]

The ESPN exclusive negotiating window closed in early October 2022. It’s been six months without a deal.

Honestly, I also believe it’s pretty likely CU winds up in the Big 12 too.

Pac 12 leadership over the past dozen years is a case study in poor management.

Now we wait and see what sh!t sandwich we have to eat.

For all the excitement I had about Larry Scott in the beginning, he was the absolute worst person to have running the conference. Every decision he made was wrong.

 

[Victory]

Love the concept Oregon and Washington are gone. $0 exit fees. Zero public sympathy for P12 if they were to leave. The timing couldn’t be perfect for them to go but yet… here they are. Stuck with us and about to get lapped in football by CU.

One thing that doesn’t get discussed is what will be the new P12 exit fee because there will be one. Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s a hold up as well.

 

[Big Jim]

Can confirm that there are rumors about the imminent departure of UO and UW from the Pac-12.