Nebraska...not feeling Frosty anymore

[WM Wolverine]

Not sure if I watched a CFB game on FS1 last season, I usually settle on a different game before I'd consider a FS1 broadcast.

B1G being on FS1 might change that for us B1G fans but I'd guess there are a lot of others like me who don't even consider FS1 airs college football unless that is the only place your game is televised.

[Wild Hoss]

We're going to have to suck it up in regards to FSN games...FOX is paying a lot of that hybrid TV contract we were so happy to get. My guess is that putting BIG games on there is how they plan to leverage its expansion into higher-profile status.

[WM Wolverine]

Their 'top' games should go the FOX network, not FS1. Yeah, B1G being on FS1 should give that channel a lot more attention.

[WM Wolverine]

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/053117aab.html

[Jeff Buchanan]

There's a decent post at mgoblog about the future of live broadcast sports in the era of steaming video.

For me, the bottom line is that live sports will sustain broadcasters a lot longer than those taking about the demise of ESPN. I do think broadcasters will adapt to changing delivery methods of live programming and I don't think Cable TV will be with us as the main means of delivering programming to viewers for much longer.

In the post I referred to above, there are some good comments about this from folks who claim to be working in affected industries.

[Hannibal]

I worry about the future of live broadcast sports or, rather, what it's going to cost you and me to be able to continue to watch them. The reasons to have an active satellite or cable subscription are rapidly dwindling. As those reasons continue to dwindle, everyone but the hardcore sports fans are going to cut the cord. That's going to leave the rest of us paying higher and higher costs, and those costs are already going through the roof. At some point, I'm going to have to justify to my wife why we're paying $200 a month so that I can watch Michigan football and the Red Wings. I hope that some kind of solution with reasonable costs emerges.

[Wild Hoss]

We'll see...I suspect that many non-sports types would balk if provided the cost for hosting the Food Network etc without the monthly dollars that Sports Fan provides. ESPN is the most expensive base channel, but its still only a fraction of the total...we're all in it together.

Additionally, going to a full ala-carte structure would collapse many channels, of which I am sure they are well aware' among those will be the networks. They will press to hold the current model together.

[WM Wolverine]

Present model is already collapsing..

*DirecTV (DirecTV Now) is offering a streaming service
*Dish Network (Sling) is offering a streaming option
*Google is building YouTube TV (needs renamed imo)
*Sony (Playstation Vue) is a good streaming service.
*Most major cable/internet companies are offering streaming options if you bundle with their internet.

Old model is in a transition phase to streaming and on demand... Disney/ESPN found out they couldn't be the one place for all sports, they grew far too fat. Lots of others will pick up Disney's/ESPN's scraps; e.g. Fox/Fox Sports 1, MLB/NBA/NFL Networks, Conference Networks, etc.

[CGVT]

Present model is already collapsing..

*DirecTV (DirecTV Now) is offering a streaming service
*Dish Network (Sling) is offering a streaming option
*Google is building YouTube TV (needs renamed imo)
*Sony (Playstation Vue) is a good streaming service.
*Most major cable/internet companies are offering streaming options if you bundle with their internet.

Old model is in a transition phase to streaming and on demand... Disney/ESPN found out they couldn't be the one place for all sports, they grew far too fat. Lots of others will pick up Disney's/ESPN's scraps; e.g. Fox/Fox Sports 1, MLB/NBA/NFL Networks, Conference Networks, etc.

Too bad they are in the process of striking down the net neutrality bill and the behemoths will be able to control what and how you can stream.

[Wild Hoss]

Streaming options arent the same as replacing though.

Internet infrastructure isnt capable of replacing cable/satellite in many parts of the country either, and wont be any time soon. Neighborhood wifi will change that eventually imo.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Hannibal]

Streaming options arent the same as replacing though.

Internet infrastructure isnt capable of replacing cable/satellite in many parts of the country either, and wont be any time soon. Neighborhood wifi will change that eventually imo.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

This is true, but streaming can still really screw up the business model even if it doesn't affect more than half of the potential viewers. That's a lot of income that will no longer be pouring into the coffers of ESPN, the B1G, etc. To pay for those hefty broadcasting rights, they will have to make up that revenue somehow. There will be two consequences for this. The first is that our cost of viewing will continue to climb. The second consequence will be that the bubble will eventually pop as sports addicts finally reach their breaking point and walk away. Sports have been going through about 30+ years of hyperinflation. Revenues have wildly outpaced inflation. Streaming services and ala carte business models may put an end to it.

[Wild Hoss]

The entire television spectrum has benefited from hyperinflation. Probably none more than sports, but like I insinuated above, there are a shit-ton of popular channels that will die if we go full ala carte streaming....which is why I contend that it won't happen.

Even if everybody in America had access to 50MB+ internet, we'll be forced to buy streaming packages, with bundles of channels/networks built around a few core staples. Those independent operators out there will start to band together too, as people are forced to make choices between channels/networks streaming at $10.00/mo, because the costs compile too quickly.

[hack]

because the costs compile too quickly.

Agreed. Bigger-as-better is, in so many ways, an economic myth.

[entropy]

Husker Nation

They will start placing the ads into live broadcasts or streamed broadcasts before they give up ad revenue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[entropy]

from the OWH:

Yoakum (Texas) receiver Joshua Moore committed to Nebraska Sunday, picking the Huskers over Florida State and Texas A&M. What’s it mean for Nebraska? Five quick takes:



1. Talent and quickness to burn. Moore is not the most polished receiver in the class, but he’s a top 100-prospect for a reason: He has the potential to be special in college. By his own admission, Moore is 6-foot-1, but he doesn’t look it; he looks two inches taller. It’s not an optical illusion; the guy is just long. Think Lamar Jackson, only a little more fond of contact. Moore invites collisions. He’s reminiscent of current Husker Stanley Morgan in that way. Plus, he can jump — a 41.5-inch vertical leap proves that. Bottom line: Moore is a high-end Power Five prospect. He’s also that distinctive, positive athlete who tends to fit in well at Nebraska.



2. Another top-100 commit. According to the 247Sports composite, Nebraska hasn’t had two top-100 prospects sign with the Huskers since 2011. Moore, No. 62 according to the composite rankings, would be NU’s second commit in the 2018 class, joining cornerback Brendan “Bookie” Radley-Hiles. The more top-100 guys you have, in the long run, the better your chances are. The Huskers currently have two — Jackson and Tyjon Lindsey — in the program.


3. Big win for Keith Williams — and Bookie. Williams recruited Moore for a long time, and set the hook here in ways that few Husker position coaches could. When Moore came on a nearly weeklong unofficial visit around the spring game, it sure didn’t hurt that Radley-Hiles, his former IMG Academy teammate, was around for most of that. Moore and Radley-Hiles squared off against each other daily in practice, and he was a helpful assist here. Still, the credit mostly goes to Williams, who swung for the fences and connected.



4. Watch the twin brother. Joshua’s brother, Jordan Moore, is a four-star safety who’s committed to Texas A&M. He appears to be pretty solidified there, but Nebraska may get him on campus for a Friday Night Lights event, and since Aggies coach Kevin Sumlin is pretty clearly on the hot seat, Jordan is in play down the road. He’s a good player, too — a nice-hitting safety — and could be a good fit for the Huskers’ defense. Nebraska doesn’t need safeties as badly as it needs top receivers — like Joshua — but it’s a situation to monitor.



5. Once again: It’s far from over. Moore is likely to have a big year at Yoakum, and it’s not likely that any of the schools recruiting him will stop or slow down. If you’re the kind of fan who wonders if all this work to land a top player is really this necessary — all the phone calls, all the social media, all the planning, all the everything — don’t kid yourself: It’s necessary. That’s because these other top programs never stop, either. And some of them, like Florida State, will have a chance to win the national title this year.