I think possibly that cable will go a la carte, maybe. But directtv for example has sunday ticket, full 4k streaming, local sports for major league teams baseball, football, hockey, basketball. Espn is already able to be streamed with Sling. The other thing is that even with cord cutting you aren't saving that much money anyway. I just don't see it. And by the way I've been a cord cutter since 2011, way before most of y'all. And I love it, but I'm also realistic. Sunday ticket alone is worth sticking with cable over streaming.
Yea, direct tv has all of those services until they don't. That's the point. Things change. Free broadcast TV had monday night football for decades and then it moved to cable. Anything can happen and it usually does. What you are saying now is what people used to say about HBO but if they can leave cable exclusivity than anyone can. NBA has already broken away from subscription only as well as the MLB. Sling sucks. It's cumbersome and no one uses it (relatively). That's why they have been able to get away with "streaming" Yea you do. All the things you named cost 150-200 a month on direct tv. Hence my comment about you working at Block Buster 10 years ago. Cool Story.
Actually directtv offers sunday ticket free to customers for a one year commitment, and they will usually give you a monthly discount to stay with them. So you are looking at under 100.00 in most cases. Not to mention the free root sports, which if you don't have that you have to pay for leaguepass which is going up every year, the mlb network, and you have to have a good antenna to get your local nfl games. Direct tv is still the best value for all of these things wrapped in one. You'll pay far more that what direct tv charges to get everything it offers.
Big win for UH here. With network off the table, Big 12 expansion focus could narrow Now they just need a catalyst/reason to expand (i.e. getting left out of the playoff and/or some G5 program kicking ass to the point it cant be ignored).
This entire article is based off comments by Boren who has become the joke of the conference. He flip flips constantly and was even publicity undercut by his bosses. He is the last one that you should think speaks for the conference. This is going to ignite a flame ware but it's relevant. The writer basses UH's inclusion based on 1 very successful last season but programs are measured over time. However, UH has finished with 3 or less losses 2 times in the last 10 years. As a comparison, TCU had 3 or less losses in 8 of the previous 10 years before getting into the big 12. I've tried to say that I am not "bashing" UH. The facts are the facts. Just win over a longer period of time and prove that the school can fill the stadium and people will respect the program. Expanding will not help the big 12 get into the playoffs if it is going to do a conference championship. It's not like they are adding 2 games to the schedule for every team in the regular season. It's just the teams you play would just be different. They will not expand until the next realignment comes and they can make plays for teams from the ACC. It's impossible to figure out what different conferences can do right now because the current cable TV models right now will be dead. I am very curious to see the revenue and expenses for every conference network. I also have no idea what those conferences show. It's a big deal if they have remote field production teams recording custom content at the same rate the longhorn network is doing it. Big 8 teams were always sensitive to Texas control in the big 12 from the beginning. None of them will support UH or any other 5th Texas team. I don't really think there is a reason any Texas big 12 team would want UH in the conference. It just doesn't make sense for so many reasons and I am just so lost as to why you can't see that. UH will get an invite to the ACC unless we are looking at a massive overall to the conference system in 2025. The ACC makes sense for all the reasons the big 12 doesn't. The last expansion from the Pac 10-12, Big 10, SEC and ACC (around 10 teams or so) were in states that the conference does not current operate in that expanded their footprints to new areas of the country, new markets and new recruits. That's where added value is. The ACC can gain to some extent by adding UH in the same way that the SEC gained from A&M. I'm pretty sure you'll see talk heat up after the new ACC media deal.
This is an opinion piece based on the blogger "Reading between the lines". This quote he is basing it on comments by big 12 president David Boren who is the least reliable source for the big 12 and has a joke of a statement history.
Good Grab. Article spoilerd if that is easier: Five reasons why the Big 12 isn't panicking Spoiler TLDR: Relevant Quotes Conference Network: Kansas AD: Sheahon Zenger: ESPN Article Writer:Adam Rittenberg ESPN Article Writer:Adam Rittenberg Expansion Kansas AD: Sheahon Zenger: Big 12 Commisioner Bowlsby: Big 12 Financials ESPN Article Writer:Adam Rittenberg This doesn't include each school's 3rd tier deal. OU makes the most at around 8 million a year. SEC payouts last year were $31.2 million which included SEC Network money. They'll release this years payout in October and it'll likely stay at the top in annual payouts. ***Big 12 game should increase payouts by 3 million to 33. Big 12 Commisioner Bowlsby: ESPN Article Writer:Adam Rittenberg I've been saying this for a while. Cable networks are b****es. There is so much crazy versatility with the amount and type of content for any digital channel you want to do. It does not have to be a giant package and it'll likely be more accessible to the fans who are interested. Dismiss me if you want but I've worked with a wide range of media and there are so many options with digital distribution no matter what the circumstances are within the content. Digital are hungry for content while cable is trying to negotiate down on all of their content.
What will happen to the ratings next year if Baylor has a down year as well as Texas? http://www.chron.com/sports/college/article/TV-ratings-show-SEC-Big-12-in-close-race-to-7965814.php
The SEC does not dominate Houston. Alabama dominates Houston. 5 of the top 6 SEC games feature Alabama. A&M makes up the rest except for 1 game between LSU and Florida. A&M is the local team and Alabama is the ratings leader nationwide. The SEC also features more games on broadcast because of their deal with ABC. Broadcast will always carry the advantage over cable however that is part of a multifaceted formula. That's not saying that it's THE reason. It's an issue of more people watching because more people can watch it. But you're right if Baylor has a bad season than ratings will fall. UT was bad last year so I don't see the ratings changing drastically for them this year if the team stays as they are but there is nowhere to go but up. The Notre Dame game on Sunday night will probably be the highest rated UT game of the year but we'll see how they do afterward with ratings. OU-Houston should do well since it's an 11:00 am slot puts it on CBS with no competition on broadcast and no notable matchups on cable. The two ABC time slots afterward are taken by Texas A&M - UCLA-and then Alabama - USC. I'm assuming your saying this is somehow a reason why the big 12 needs UH but I'm not sure why based on their awful 2 of 20 showing last year. That can all change this season though and everyone will re-evaluate. TLDR: As long as the SEC has a deal with ABC then Texas A&M and Alabama will have over the air broadcast games in Houston and they will continue to do well. I would worry if SEC matchups without those two teams start taking hold in Houston. In the top 83 College football Games in Houston:– The big 12 had %25 of the market while the SEC had 29%.
So A&M had 4 games in the top 20 but none in the remaining 63? It'd be interesting to see the breakdown in other markets.
No just saying the SEC is eating up the Big 12 market in Houston. This analysis doesn't count the SEC channel or CBS Sports Network. A&M more likely than not has more games on this list.
