ESPN, Fox, Warner Bros and Discovery to launch streaming sports network

rick64

Well-known member
Jan 25, 2007
22,914
30,378
113

AustinTXCat

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2003
52,032
305,610
113
Good. Unfortunately, WBD failed to move positively or negatively thus far. Perhaps announcement came after market close.

There's always tomorrow.
 

H-D cat

New member
Oct 9, 2004
12,084
443
0
The whole benefit of streaming was that you could get stuff a la carte. They are going to get this so that you have to constantly get different streamers to watch different sports or teams. It's already worse than cable. LOL.
I agree in part with what you're saying, but to me, the absolute worst parts of cable or satellite were 1) the contract you had to sign, often 2-3 years, 2) the hardware requirement that tied you to the service, and 3) the difficulty in canceling. As long as streaming continues to solve those three things (no contracts, no hardware, online canceling or suspension at any time), I don't think the bundling model is necessarily a bad thing.
 

roguemocha

New member
Jan 30, 2007
12,943
6,587
0
Yeah the ability to pause my YTTV account after the tourney and the Masters all summer until FBall season is great. Do it every year and my buddy gives me his MLB Network password and I have that all summer.

I barely watch tv in the summer anyway.
 

hmt5000

New member
Aug 29, 2009
26,976
82,647
0
I agree in part with what you're saying, but to me, the absolute worst parts of cable or satellite were 1) the contract you had to sign, often 2-3 years, 2) the hardware requirement that tied you to the service, and 3) the difficulty in canceling. As long as streaming continues to solve those three things (no contracts, no hardware, online canceling or suspension at any time), I don't think the bundling model is necessarily a bad thing.
agreed... but it's just getting started. We are probably going to end up with 4 or 5 streamers when this all shakes out. Most streamers are losing money and that can't go on forever. I just fear we'll have to have D+ for espn, Amazon Prime for a couple SEC games, Youtube for a few BBall games... they need money and sports leagues are demanding more and more for rights. Ad revenue is down across the board, so it looks like they are going to have to raise rates a bunch.
 

Col. Angus

Active member
Apr 7, 2017
69,154
207,522
83
I’ll just keep my YouTubeTV. Only have it for the DVR and sports. Wife pays for HBO Max, Hulu, Disney +, Amazon Prime, and Netflix like a dumbass. That’s fine by me. Never watch em anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KYExtemper

funKYcat75

Well-known member
Apr 10, 2008
32,269
40,646
112
As long as I don't miss any UK games (ESPN) the Tourney (TNT, for some games) and the World Series (FOX) they can do whatever they want. I'd imagine the backlash from trying to put Tourney games on paid streaming would be very bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustinTXCat

roguemocha

New member
Jan 30, 2007
12,943
6,587
0
It’s the same as someone said they think the SB will be PPV one day and I said no way. You have 250 million people watching as it is now, you’d lose a TON of eyeballs if you did that, mine included.

I don’t give one flying touch about the SB unless the Pack is in it or it’s because I’m meeting up with friends. I could EASILY not watch it. Or you’ll just have more house parties which is still less money.
 

vhcat70

New member
Feb 5, 2003
57,418
38,482
0
agreed... but it's just getting started. We are probably going to end up with 4 or 5 streamers when this all shakes out. Most streamers are losing money and that can't go on forever. I just fear we'll have to have D+ for espn, Amazon Prime for a couple SEC games, Youtube for a few BBall games... they need money and sports leagues are demanding more and more for rights. Ad revenue is down across the board, so it looks like they are going to have to raise rates a bunch.
I think Prime is in trouble.
 

delk4three

New member
Jul 1, 2004
358
570
0
I would get this service for college football season and then cancel. The free ad supported services give me more than enough to watch the rest of the year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gamecockcat

jameslee32

New member
Mar 26, 2009
33,643
22,325
0
Amazon acquired the broadcasting rights to 5 MLB teams in the Bally Sports bankruptcy. Should they bring the others into the fold including many NBA, NHL teams and keep the NFL rights, sports streamers may only need two subscriptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustinTXCat

jtrue28

New member
Feb 8, 2007
4,134
1,513
0
Weird that it’s TNT, TBS and likely TruTV, but not CBS. That’s gonna touch the tournament up quite a bit. (I know Disney owns ABC)
 

hmt5000

New member
Aug 29, 2009
26,976
82,647
0
After listening to Disney quarterly call I think the people predicting that Disney would cannibalize Hulu in order to prop up D+ and ESPN were right. Bob basically admitted some of the changes they are making will negatively affect Hulu.
 

WonderBraa

New member
Feb 19, 2012
4,317
1,247
0
It’s the same as someone said they think the SB will be PPV one day and I said no way. You have 250 million people watching as it is now, you’d lose a TON of eyeballs if you did that, mine included.

I don’t give one flying touch about the SB unless the Pack is in it or it’s because I’m meeting up with friends. I could EASILY not watch it. Or you’ll just have more house parties which is still less money.
Don’t agree with that. I think 123 million watched the Super Bowl. Cut that in half to be conservative and charge $80. They’ll make billions.
 

hmt5000

New member
Aug 29, 2009
26,976
82,647
0
Don’t agree with that. I think 123 million watched the Super Bowl. Cut that in half to be conservative and charge $80. They’ll make billions.
What is going to hurt sports is highlights. NBA is losing live viewers because most games people want to see the insane plays and not each play.... Agree SB and NBA finals would be different but they still are going to want billions soon for broadcast right. NBA isn't much different from And1 now.
 

WonderBraa

New member
Feb 19, 2012
4,317
1,247
0
What is going to hurt sports is highlights. NBA is losing live viewers because most games people want to see the insane plays and not each play.... Agree SB and NBA finals would be different but they still are going to want billions soon for broadcast right. NBA isn't much different from And1 now.
The television companies already pay like 2 billion for the superbowl. Lots of money made up from ads.
 

hmt5000

New member
Aug 29, 2009
26,976
82,647
0
The television companies already pay like 2 billion for the superbowl. Lots of money made up from ads.
I know. Just saying... ad revenue is drying up because viewers have soooo many choices and return on investment isn't what it used to be. Like on the nba... Their YouTube channel get multi millions of hits on highlights. Live games only get a few million views. Why would a co advertise with the nba on a game for $20 million when they can advertise on YT clips for $2 million?

It's hard to say overall. TV isn't done changing and feel like none of us will recognize tv viewership in another 4 years. LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: WonderBraa

UK-Chulo

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2007
3,447
4,971
98
I know. Just saying... ad revenue is drying up because viewers have soooo many choices and return on investment isn't what it used to be. Like on the nba... Their YouTube channel get multi millions of hits on highlights. Live games only get a few million views. Why would a co advertise with the nba on a game for $20 million when they can advertise on YT clips for $2 million?

It's hard to say overall. TV isn't done changing and feel like none of us will recognize tv viewership in another 4 years. LOL
Younger generations are consuming sports differently than we have.
 
Jan 13, 2002
16,181
2,095
0
ESPN+ by itself is $11 ... so this package would be at least $50 (maybe a cheaper intro offer).

YouTube Tv will probably go up in price, but it is more valuable to me (to get other channels, even if I don't watch them regularly) than to downsize to just this sports package.
 

LowerLevelSeatA

New member
Jun 2, 2005
2,794
3,119
0
Maybe easy to say now but they split sports into streaming packages that cost more, I may just go without sports. Like a lot of America, my attitude/passion/dedication to sports has changed over the years. Put that along with inflation and may just be time to say yeah, it’s really not a necessity in my life.