Everyone has their reasons and viewpoints for one subscriber or another. I like to watch the USC womens soccer team play which has the majority of their games on ESPN+, like you I also like to watch USC baseball games which are mostly on ESPN+. The thing is ESPN+ is free so I also love to watch games on the west coast late at nights. Lastly I do like the movies on Disney+ which is basically free. But I understand to each his own.
Very interesting article on the possible future of sports on tv
- Thread starter Big JC
- Start date
While overly long, the piece makes sense. To me, it just underscores why universities would do well to continue to foster the decades-long relationships they have had with season ticket holder families by keeping prices attainable. As ticket revenue became a smaller and smaller percentage of overall college football revenue (compared to TV revenue divvied up by the conferences), the schools could have decided that they weren't going to try to squeeze every last dime of revenue from their in-person fans. But, for the most part, they didn't. Ticket prices escalated, concession and parking prices escalated, and attendance dropped. Standard seating is now being replaced in most stadiums by premium seating which is often purchased by corporate entities with no real loyalty to the team. At the same time, conference realignment means that teams are traveling farther for road games, choosing national matchups that appeal to TV viewers over closer regional opponents that make for an easy road-trip for fans (which means 6000 - 8000 visiting fans aren't helping to fill your stadium or stay in your town).
If the premise of the piece is correct and the TV revenue will dry up considerably, how easy will it be to lure all those former season ticket holders back?
If the premise of the piece is correct and the TV revenue will dry up considerably, how easy will it be to lure all those former season ticket holders back?
Yep, I thought this season was great. The regular season still meant.something. The only difference was one loss was not the end all be all as it has before. IMO the old way left room for teams to schedule a National Championship Run (Clemson 81, Georgia Tech/Colorado). I feel good in acknowledging Ohio State as the best team. Some complain that it is all about money now. My response is what segment of society isn't. Even today's church for the most part is all about money. That is what our society has become for better or worse.
I get ESPN+ on my Apple MacBook Air (free) and AirPlay it to my 65" LG OLED TV...win, win (except for the mens game -- lose, lose).
You don't need to add a Sports package to get ESPN/SECN. It comes with the base package. What I don't get is the Tennis Channel!! However, it can be added-on to YTTV Base Plan.
I think the bigger issue is that what we have and where sports are going is probably unsustainable. When a sport, any sport, becomes so expensive to play or attend that only the wealthy can afford it society in general will move on to something else and not pay attention or pay money to that sport. When football becomes a game played by millionaires in small stadiums full of millionaires, the general public will have no interest in it. Major league baseball used to be a very egalitarian sport, kids and families could go to games multiple times in a season. Today, a family is lucky to go to one MLB game per season.
We live in the SEC bubble. Attendance is strong at most SEC football games outside of Vandy and KY. Watch an ACC game that isn't in Clemson and you will see a lot of empty seats. West Coast teams commonly don't fill half of the stadium.
...and whose fault would it be if the sustainability of the sport is in question. A person selling any product will charge what the patrons are willing to spend. So far the patrons have been so enamored with a willingness to spend that they have created all these collectives trying to win. The players didn't make anyone do that. Television Networks charge what they charge and we keep paying. At some point, there has to be a breaking point, but apparently not now. I see the streaming services becoming the new cable soon. It's already happening. YouTube TV went up another $10 at the beginning of this year and they are already talking about losing channels. There are negotiations with Paramount where YouTube TV subscribers may lose CBS and other networks connected to Paramount in a month. It's the same song and dance to push people to streaming in the first place. The only option I can see to bring any sanity to this is each individual network having to go on the market and compete with every other network for subscribers. That will allow the consumer to get exactly what it wants and pay the prices for those platforms that they want. There will be platforms that will inevitably fall this way, but right now the only difference between satellite/cable and streaming services is that you don't have to deal with all the equipment.
Last edited:
There are a lot reasons for empty seats and it doesn't always have to do with cost. I know that before I stopped contributing to the Gamecock Club and getting season tickets, I would consistently miss a game maybe even two because I wanted to watch all the games on a Saturday in the comfort of my Media Room. I know a lot of people that prefer that over going to the games. Television is the main driver of the rising costs in all sports. You make money off the gate, but it's those TV contracts that drive the decisions of what these programs/franchises(in the pro ranks) do.
That is all true but when the attendance at the actual event falls off it is a sure sign of declining interest. Again, we live in the SEC bubble, where interest in college football is greatest in the country. TV chases and pays for eyeballs. When interest and attendance drops, the TV money goes down.
Finebaum had some interesting comments last week about what he is hearing regarding college football. He said everywhere he goes he is hearing people lament the direction college football is going. The portal is the biggest problem, fans are losing their connection to the players and therefore the teams due to players leaving every year. NIL isn't helping either. Fans don't like teams being in bidding wars for talent and the players not really having a deep attachment to the school.
There isn't going to be an abandoning of college football over night but I think a slow decline is coming.
120 years ago, football was a millionaires game. And we're heading back in that direction in D-I.
Cost is a major reason why I prefer college baseball to to MLB. This year, I hope to attend USC's Thursday game at Auburn, and Ga Tech hosting Clemron.
You can get a good infield seat for about $10.00. It's not MLB, but it's not Dixie Youth either - you have to have some talent to make a D-I roster.
Last edited:
Streaming is cable/satellite 2.0.
Get a good antenna and watch TV the traditional way - OTA (over-the-air) advertiser-supported.
I like Sling TV's model. Use your antenna for primary viewing, and supplement it with non-broadcast channels.
I can see maybe attending 1-2 games per year for the environment, but not every contest. That's what prompted me to drive to Athens to watch WBB play UGA.
Your media room sounds inviting.
HS baseball is very entertaining if the teams are talented and the Atlanta area is a hotbed of HS baseball talent. College baseball at every level is fun to watch. Any kid playing college baseball has talent. We have a A minor league team and their games are a blast to attend and are very affordable.
I agree about the direction football is heading. 20 years from now I wouldn't be surprised if 50,000 fans at a game was considered a huge in person crowd.