Pages:
Actions
  • #1 by WizardofhOgZ on 22 Jun 2017
  • With Cable TV in obvious decline, this article looks at what the next decade or so may hold for College sports in terms of televised rights fees and what reduced revenue may mean for realignment/consolidation of conferences.

    https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/arkansas-football/next-round-college-football-realignment-look-like-nfl/
  • #2 by Inhogswetrust on 22 Jun 2017
  • It said "college football depends on cable." That might be true now but soon won't be as it pointed out. It will depend on reach and viewers. HOW that reach and viewership is done in the future is what the future of college football depends on. The reach will still be there somehow. The only question is will there be enough viewers OR at least enough to keep paying to watch. They are forgetting one HUGE caveat in their future of conferences.................. the possibility of politicians getting involved. There have been hints of it already.
  • #3 by daBoar on 22 Jun 2017
  • Perhaps all of this will force college football to go back towards a more truer form of amateur atheletics....I can only hope so as that might help resolve our competitive position in the SEC.
  • #4 by Boss Hog in the Arkansas on 22 Jun 2017
  • Perhaps all of this will force college football to go back towards a more truer form of amateur atheletics....I can only hope so as that might help resolve our competitive position in the SEC.
    Do tell
  • #5 by hogsanity on 22 Jun 2017
  • It said "college football depends on cable." That might be true now but soon won't be as it pointed out. It will depend on reach and viewers. HOW that reach and viewership is done in the future is what the future of college football depends on. The reach will still be there somehow. The only question is will there be enough viewers OR at least enough to keep paying to watch. They are forgetting one HUGE caveat in their future of conferences.................. the possibility of politicians getting involved. There have been hints of it already.

    The problem is $$$$ - isnt it always - cable has been able to pass through the cost of rights fees to ALL customers for a long time. If you had a million customers to the package that say espn was on, then you had a million customers a months payinga bill that you had included the espn carrige fee into. These people paid whether they watched espn or not. The cable co was paying ESPN about 6mil a month for the right to carry ESPN. Now, with all the cord cutting, that same company may only have 700K on that package, so now they are paying ESPN about 4.2mil a month. Off that one company ESPn has seen its carriage revenue drop by almost $22mil annually. Now spread that over the entire cable universe.

    With cord cutters, and the fact that many younger people do not watch sports much or all, I can't see how rights fees paid to conferences will not be reduced from what they are now.
  • #6 by Inhogswetrust on 22 Jun 2017
  • The problem is $$$$ - isnt it always - cable has been able to pass through the cost of rights fees to ALL customers for a long time. If you had a million customers to the package that say espn was on, then you had a million customers a months payinga bill that you had included the espn carrige fee into. These people paid whether they watched espn or not. The cable co was paying ESPN about 6mil a month for the right to carry ESPN. Now, with all the cord cutting, that same company may only have 700K on that package, so now they are paying ESPN about 4.2mil a month. Off that one company ESPn has seen its carriage revenue drop by almost $22mil annually. Now spread that over the entire cable universe.

    With cord cutters, and the fact that many younger people do not watch sports much or all, I can't see how rights fees paid to conferences will not be reduced from what they are now.

    Thus the reason that ESPN has cut loose a lot of people. One way management uses to save money is lower labor costs. We all know that. I've had to do that myself. I think the ones that need to worry are the viewers that will still want to watch. They will have to pay more somehow on a per viewer basis. We can only hope that watching college sports does not become like pro boxing and has to charge out the wazoo just to watch one single event. I do think that at some point athletic departments will also have to tighten budgets otherwise ticket prices and donations and such will go sky high. Some people think they already are. It will be even more interesting to me as to what pro football and sports will have to do.
  • #7 by hogsanity on 22 Jun 2017
  • Thus the reason that ESPN has cut loose a lot of people. One way management uses to save money is lower labor costs. We all know that. I've had to do that myself. I think the ones that need to worry are the viewers that will still want to watch. They will have to pay more somehow on a per viewer basis. We can only hope that watching college sports does not become like pro boxing and has to charge out the wazoo just to watch one single event. I do think that at some point athletic departments will also have to tighten budgets otherwise ticket prices and donations and such will go sky high. Some people think they already are. It will be even more interesting to me as to what pro football and sports will have to do.


    I posed the question here several years ago asking if college football was a bubble, and, if so, when would it pop.
  • #8 by Mike_e on 22 Jun 2017
  • The only thing that makes any real sense from right now is college football following the lead of the NFL.  As the article pointed out creating content scarcity would maintain revenue while keeping a full schedule.

    At least they put us in with the big dogs which for SDS is passing respect.  /s
  • #9 by Mike Irwin on 22 Jun 2017
  • They're guessing. Nobody can predict the future. No matter how you get college football games at your house you're going to have to pay for it. The money will still be there especially when you can watch games in 4K. If there's a revenue drop it will be in live gate attendance. I could see 70,000 being a great crowd ten years from now. That's why luxury seating is so important.
  • #10 by nchogg on 23 Jun 2017
  • It's all about the money. But one thing I can say is that I have been able to watch all our football games with my slingbox apk.
  • #11 by oldhawg on 23 Jun 2017
  • If major college football is reduced to a 32 team field as the article suggests, is there a possibility that Arkansas will be left out (although the author includes them in his scenario)?
  • #12 by Mike Irwin on 23 Jun 2017
  • The author is wrong. There could be some reshuffling but it won't be that dramatic. As long as college football is popular people will watch it and it's not going to be free.
  • #13 by factchecker on 23 Jun 2017
  • If major college football is reduced to a 32 team field as the article suggests, is there a possibility that Arkansas will be left out (although the author includes them in his scenario)?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-sports-2016-10/#16-arkansas--1142-million-10
  • #14 by oldhawg on 23 Jun 2017
  • #15 by nchogg on 23 Jun 2017
  • The author is wrong. There could be some reshuffling but it won't be that dramatic. As long as college football is popular people will watch it and it's not going to be free.
    [/quote
    I heard that Mike, sad but true.
  • #16 by Gonzo on 23 Jun 2017
  • If major college football is reduced to a 32 team field as the article suggests, is there a possibility that Arkansas will be left out (although the author includes them in his scenario)?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-sports-2016-10/#16-arkansas--1142-million-10


    If (huge if imo) the college landscape were restructured with the "top" 32 teams in one grouping, I think the Hogs would be a borderline invitee, along with several other teams. I think they'd be far from a lock, a solid invitee/perhaps lock with 40, probably a lock with 48. The crux would be whether the decision makers place more importance on history or ratings. The Hogs would bring a pretty decent argument for the former, not so much for the latter with a mid 50s tv market. It would likely be a mix of both, but who knows what weight either would carry. My guess is ratings would carry more, maybe 60/40 or 70/30 just for ballparks.

    While the revenue figures cited are nice, I don't think they're any definitive image of a school's desirability for a new CFB landscape. Of the 32 teams the writer cites for his new league, I think the Hogs would be in the last tier along with the Miss schools, Iowa, Minnessota, Mizzou, and Kentucky, maybe USC-e. I think there would also be a few other teams with access to larger markets which would be in play, such as Stanford/Cal, Va Tech/Maryland, Colorado, BC, and probably a couple more not coming to mind at the moment.

    Personally, IF such a move were made, I'd prefer at least the 48 option, make it six 8 team conferences, gives more variety in the non-conference season. Rather than leave it to the schools to do their own schedule negotiating, maybe go with the NFL model where conferences rotate thru each other from year to year. 12 games - 7 conference games - 3 games from that season's conference/conference faceoff based on previous year's standings like NFL - and 2 games with opps from other conferences.   Doubt we'll ever see something so clearcut though, even if realignment is done.



    Go Hogs!
  • #17 by sevenof400 on 23 Jun 2017
  • They're guessing. Nobody can predict the future. No matter how you get college football games at your house you're going to have to pay for it. The money will still be there especially when you can watch games in 4K. If there's a revenue drop it will be in live gate attendance. I could see 70,000 being a great crowd ten years from now. That's why luxury seating is so important.

    It seems as if you're suggesting that free OTA channels are going to stop broadcasting college football.  There's no way that's happening but I may not be seeing your point here.  Are you saying more broadcasts migrate to some sort of paid basis - away from free OTA broadcasts?  It's almost as if you're implying that CBS, ABC and NBC are getting out of broadcasting college football....

    With respect to luxury seating, are you saying one person in attendance in a luxury seat is worth 4 persons attending via general admission so the focus is turning toward luxury seating because a university can make enough profit on one luxury seat to offset the loss of four general admission fans?   If luxury seating is shorthand for money grab, I can sort of see where you're going with this but luxury seat fans are cancers toward creating an environment where opponents fear to tread. 
  • #18 by Inhogswetrust on 24 Jun 2017

  • If (huge if imo) the college landscape were restructured with the "top" 32 teams in one grouping, I think the Hogs would be a borderline invitee, along with several other teams. I think they'd be far from a lock, a solid invitee/perhaps lock with 40, probably a lock with 48. The crux would be whether the decision makers place more importance on history or ratings. The Hogs would bring a pretty decent argument for the former, not so much for the latter with a mid 50s tv market. It would likely be a mix of both, but who knows what weight either would carry. My guess is ratings would carry more, maybe 60/40 or 70/30 just for ballparks.

    While the revenue figures cited are nice, I don't think they're any definitive image of a school's desirability for a new CFB landscape. Of the 32 teams the writer cites for his new league, I think the Hogs would be in the last tier along with the Miss schools, Iowa, Minnessota, Mizzou, and Kentucky, maybe USC-e. I think there would also be a few other teams with access to larger markets which would be in play, such as Stanford/Cal, Va Tech/Maryland, Colorado, BC, and probably a couple more not coming to mind at the moment.


    It wouldn't be just the local market size a team is in it would also be the ratings they have historically carried as well. If it was only local market size then a lot of smaller schools would be in over much more known" programs. For example USCe is not in a large market BUIT they have a huge following on other markets such as Charlotte, NC. Same for VT. Blacksburg and western VA is sparsly populated but it has a big following in Richmond, DC and the tidewater area. There are a lot of Arkansas fans in Tulsa, DFW and Memphis markets. There are teams in large markets that don't get the ratings one would think they would get either. Sometimes a larger market brings more competition for viewership and interest. Stanford/Cal is a prime example as well as Maryland, CU, BC, etc. I agree that 48 or so seems to be a better number anyway. 32 doesn't cover enough of the ones that have good followings.
  • #19 by Inhogswetrust on 24 Jun 2017
  • With respect to luxury seating, are you saying one person in attendance in a luxury seat is worth 4 persons attending via general admission so the focus is turning toward luxury seating because a university can make enough profit on one luxury seat to offset the loss of four general admission fans?   If luxury seating is shorthand for money grab, I can sort of see where you're going with this but luxury seat fans are cancers toward creating an environment where opponents fear to tread. 

    Luxury seats aren't a pure money grab. They are managing margins.
  • #20 by sevenof400 on 24 Jun 2017
  • Luxury seats aren't a pure money grab. They are managing margins.

    It appears your second sentence (at least in some ways) contradicts the first....assuming you're referring to profit margins....

    Care to expand on this a bit?
  • #21 by OneTuskOverTheLine™ on 24 Jun 2017
  • I see ESPN pulling there revenue source straight out of the cable box and straight into subscriber fees. I cannot think of anyone who wouldn't pay $15 to $20 per month directly for an ESPN package that included all the ESPN formats plus 1 special (i.e. SEC Network).
  • #22 by parallaxpig on 24 Jun 2017
  • College football was very popular before cable when there were only 3 TV networks.  If you wanted to see the game you went to the game. It can happen again.
  • #23 by WilsonHog on 24 Jun 2017
  • It appears your second sentence (at least in some ways) contradicts the first....assuming you're referring to profit margins....

    Care to expand on this a bit?

    First of all, I will no means ever be the owner of a luxury box (unfortunately, I do not live the lifestyle to which I one day hoped to become accustomed). I have four seats in the South Indoor Club, and that is the extent of what I will ever have.

    However, I'll extrapolate the argument this far: if my interest was simply watching Razorback football games - confined solely to the action on the field, as it was when I was in my 20s and 30s - I would not have season tickets. The cost is too high given that most every game we play is on television. I'd likely attend one game a season and leave it at that.

    Simply watching the game, however, is no longer my primary motivation. I want the game to be the centerpiece of a larger weekend experience. I want to watch it in as much comfort as I can afford. I want to enjoy the experience of being in the venue from a cushioned theater seat in a climate-controlled area with expanded concessions available. I want to be able to give my family the same experience, and to use the games to entertain those family members. If I was wealthy enough to afford a luxury box, those same motivations would likely be 10-fold.   
  • #24 by sevenof400 on 24 Jun 2017
  • I see ESPN pulling there revenue source straight out of the cable box and straight into subscriber fees. I cannot think of anyone who wouldn't pay $15 to $20 per month directly for an ESPN package that included all the ESPN formats plus 1 special (i.e. SEC Network).

    Count me out of that as ESPN's programming simply is not worth anything near that much per month to me.  $15 or $20 per year - maybe. 
    ESPN's programming is declining in quality and their overt political bias is nauseating.     

    But if we are moving closer toward the end used being able to choose and pay for only the channels they wanted, I'd be a big fan of that.

    College football was very popular before cable when there were only 3 TV networks. 

    I'd go as far to say college football was more popular in the 70's and 80's than it is today. 


    If you wanted to see the game you went to the game. It can happen again.

    With ticket prices as high as they are now, there would have to be some serious market correction to bring people back to the games.  I agree there is a portion of fans who would find their way back to stadiums if TV broadcast / access were reduced but until the in stadium experience looks more like the 70's and 80's instead of the commercial interjected experience it has become today I don't think fans would come back en mass.
  • #25 by Inhogswetrust on 24 Jun 2017
  • It appears your second sentence (at least in some ways) contradicts the first....assuming you're referring to profit margins....

    Care to expand on this a bit?

    Analogy to Profit margins are a part of it. Some businesses work off big volume and cheaper and others work off lower column and higher prices i.e. margin management.   
  • #26 by parallaxpig on 24 Jun 2017
  • With ticket prices as high as they are now, there would have to be some serious market correction to bring people back to the games. 


    I graduated college when interest rates to buy a home were 12-18%.  Job market was really tough and stood in line to buy gas. History almost always repeats itself and this economy we have been living in for past 20 some odd years want last forever. That market correction you spoke of could happen.
  • #27 by Seebs on 24 Jun 2017
  • Rice tried to predict the future once -
    As originally built, Rice Stadium seated 70,000, the second-largest stadium in the Southwest Conference (behind the Cotton Bowl). Rice Stadium was built before professional football came to Houston, and 70,000 fans might be expected to attend a college football game there. However, Rice found it increasingly difficult from the 1960s onward to compete against larger schools. In 2006, the end zones seats were covered with tarps, reducing seating capacity to 47,000. However, in the event of larger-than-expected crowds, it can easily be expanded to its full capacity, which is larger than the total number of Rice's living alumni. The average attendance for Rice football games in Rice Stadium was 13,353 in 2007.[7] For the 2008 season, average home attendance was 20,179.[8] During the 2009 season, average home attendance dipped once again to 13,552 per game.[9] However, for the 2012 season it was 20,325.[10]
  • #28 by Inhogswetrust on 24 Jun 2017
  • Rice tried to predict the future once -
    As originally built, Rice Stadium seated 70,000, the second-largest stadium in the Southwest Conference (behind the Cotton Bowl). Rice Stadium was built before professional football came to Houston, and 70,000 fans might be expected to attend a college football game there. However, Rice found it increasingly difficult from the 1960s onward to compete against larger schools. In 2006, the end zones seats were covered with tarps, reducing seating capacity to 47,000. However, in the event of larger-than-expected crowds, it can easily be expanded to its full capacity, which is larger than the total number of Rice's living alumni. The average attendance for Rice football games in Rice Stadium was 13,353 in 2007.[7] For the 2008 season, average home attendance was 20,179.[8] During the 2009 season, average home attendance dipped once again to 13,552 per game.[9] However, for the 2012 season it was 20,325.[10]

    Nice direct quote from wikipedia....................except you failed to mention it was built in 1950. They had no way of knowing that pro football would come to town or be as big as it became. Besides years ago Rice had a decent team some years. They played in several good bowls which were much harder to get into then since there were so few bowls available. Maybe in 1950 they needed a stadium that big, especially for the big named teams when they came to town to play them.
  • #29 by gchamblee on 24 Jun 2017
  • It said "college football depends on cable." That might be true now but soon won't be as it pointed out. It will depend on reach and viewers. HOW that reach and viewership is done in the future is what the future of college football depends on. The reach will still be there somehow. The only question is will there be enough viewers OR at least enough to keep paying to watch. They are forgetting one HUGE caveat in their future of conferences.................. the possibility of politicians getting involved. There have been hints of it already.

    I don't have cable and will not miss any game I want to see. Even without cable, I still subscribe to ESPN, FOX, BTN, SECN, NFL, NFLRZ, LHN and a multitude of other sports channels. People aren't going to stop watching football, but how they consume the content will change.
  • #30 by Uberanubis on 25 Jun 2017
  • The problem is $$$$ - isnt it always - cable has been able to pass through the cost of rights fees to ALL customers for a long time. If you had a million customers to the package that say espn was on, then you had a million customers a months payinga bill that you had included the espn carrige fee into. These people paid whether they watched espn or not. The cable co was paying ESPN about 6mil a month for the right to carry ESPN. Now, with all the cord cutting, that same company may only have 700K on that package, so now they are paying ESPN about 4.2mil a month. Off that one company ESPn has seen its carriage revenue drop by almost $22mil annually. Now spread that over the entire cable universe.

    With cord cutters, and the fact that many younger people do not watch sports much or all, I can't see how rights fees paid to conferences will not be reduced from what they are now.

    its not that younger people are not watching sports. they are just doing it differently then the old people. cutting the cord is more then a trend. people (especially the younger generation) just cant afford it. my wife and cut the cord recently. i will watch sports. i will just do it differently.
  • #31 by Inhogswetrust on 25 Jun 2017
  • I don't have cable and will not miss any game I want to see. Even without cable, I still subscribe to ESPN, FOX, BTN, SECN, NFL, NFLRZ, LHN and a multitude of other sports channels. People aren't going to stop watching football, but how they consume the content will change.

    Agree. I have Roku and get 90% of all the sports I want to watch for cheap $.
  • #32 by HiggiePiggy on 25 Jun 2017
  • its not that younger people are not watching sports. they are just doing it differently then the old people. cutting the cord is more then a trend. people (especially the younger generation) just cant afford it. my wife and cut the cord recently. i will watch sports. i will just do it differently.

    Not really about affording it.  People shouldn't have to pay 100+ for tv and then watch new subscribers to providers get a discount while others that have been with them for awhile get price hikes.
  • #33 by McKdaddy on 25 Jun 2017




  • Simply watching the game, however, is no longer my primary motivation. I want the game to be the centerpiece of a larger weekend experience. I want to watch it in as much comfort as I can afford. I want to enjoy the experience of being in the venue from a cushioned theater seat in a climate-controlled area with expanded concessions available. I want to be able to give my family the same experience, and to use the games to entertain those family members. If I was wealthy enough to afford a luxury box, those same motivations would likely be 10-fold.   


    Agreed. With my little ones activities dominating my weekends these days, I'm watching many more games on tv than I'd prefer, so when I go I'm taking advantage of the comforts.
  • #34 by McKdaddy on 25 Jun 2017
  • I don't have cable and will not miss any game I want to see. Even without cable, I still subscribe to ESPN, FOX, BTN, SECN, NFL, NFLRZ, LHN and a multitude of other sports channels. People aren't going to stop watching football, but how they consume the content will change.


    I'd like to learn more about this. I've not made the jump b/c every time there is a service or device that I think will work for us, I find out it is missing 1-2 key channels. For example, 1 service seemed like it was finally the one for us, but missing was a financial markets channel (I'd prefer Bloomberg, but also didn't have cnbc & fox biz).

    Another time we thought we had found the service that would be "the one", but missing was FSMW, which I subscribe to for Cards game. So that was a deal-breaker.

    I'm open to cord-cutting, but my needs must be met.
  • #35 by Seebs on 25 Jun 2017
  • Nice direct quote from wikipedia....................except you failed to mention it was built in 1950. They had no way of knowing that pro football would come to town or be as big as it became. Besides years ago Rice had a decent team some years. They played in several good bowls which were much harder to get into then since there were so few bowls available. Maybe in 1950 they needed a stadium that big, especially for the big named teams when they came to town to play them.
    You're like a savant. Without a gift.
  • #36 by HiggiePiggy on 25 Jun 2017

  • I'd like to learn more about this. I've not made the jump b/c every time there is a service or device that I think will work for us, I find out it is missing 1-2 key channels. For example, 1 service seemed like it was finally the one for us, but missing was a financial markets channel (I'd prefer Bloomberg, but also didn't have cnbc & fox biz).

    Another time we thought we had found the service that would be "the one", but missing was FSMW, which I subscribe to for Cards game. So that was a deal-breaker.

    I'm open to cord-cutting, but my needs must be met.

    What is FSMW?
  • #37 by HiggiePiggy on 25 Jun 2017
  • I have Apple TV. I have PlayStation Vue for most of the shows and sports. Bloomberg has a stand alone app on the Apple TV.
  • #38 by ricepig on 25 Jun 2017
  • #39 by McKdaddy on 25 Jun 2017
  • I have Apple TV. I have PlayStation Vue for most of the shows and sports. Bloomberg has a stand alone app on the Apple TV.


    Thanks for the info.
  • #40 by HiggiePiggy on 25 Jun 2017
  • Fox Sports Midwest

    Ok. I didn't see that on PlayStation Vue
  • #41 by Mike Irwin on 25 Jun 2017
  • It seems as if you're suggesting that free OTA channels are going to stop broadcasting college football.  There's no way that's happening but I may not be seeing your point here.  Are you saying more broadcasts migrate to some sort of paid basis - away from free OTA broadcasts?  It's almost as if you're implying that CBS, ABC and NBC are getting out of broadcasting college football....

    With respect to luxury seating, are you saying one person in attendance in a luxury seat is worth 4 persons attending via general admission so the focus is turning toward luxury seating because a university can make enough profit on one luxury seat to offset the loss of four general admission fans?   If luxury seating is shorthand for money grab, I can sort of see where you're going with this but luxury seat fans are cancers toward creating an environment where opponents fear to tread.
    No they will continue to broadcast games and if you get the networks off an antenna and free you don't pay to watch those games. But the Networks pay and the revenue goes to the various conferences. So schools aren't going to be screwed if ESPN goes into the toilet. As for ESPN those people got too big for their britches. They made bad deals (the Longhorn Network) and acted like they were the only game in town. If they go totally bust somebody else will take their place and probably do a better job. That's the way our consumer driven economic system works.

    As for the free networks they may not be free in the future. Some think CBS, NBC, ABC & Fox are going to eventually bypass local stations and become subscriber driven. If that happens you'll pay for college sports from them if you want it badly enough.

    My point is, if a product is popular it's not going to become unpopular just because the people (ESPN) delivering the product don't have their act together. Those companies will go bust and another company will jump in and take their place.
  • #42 by gchamblee on 25 Jun 2017

  • I'd like to learn more about this. I've not made the jump b/c every time there is a service or device that I think will work for us, I find out it is missing 1-2 key channels. For example, 1 service seemed like it was finally the one for us, but missing was a financial markets channel (I'd prefer Bloomberg, but also didn't have cnbc & fox biz).

    Another time we thought we had found the service that would be "the one", but missing was FSMW, which I subscribe to for Cards game. So that was a deal-breaker.

    I'm open to cord-cutting, but my needs must be met.

    I got a ROKU box at walmart, subscribed to PSVUE for live television HBO and SHOWTIME, use Netflix and Amazon Prime for watching leisure.
  • #43 by McKdaddy on 25 Jun 2017
  • I got a ROKU box at walmart, subscribed to PSVUE for live television HBO and SHOWTIME, use Netflix and Amazon Prime for watching leisure.


    Makes sense. The only thing I see missing on the "biggest" psvue subscription is nbcsn & fsmw (it defaulted me to fssw based on zip code....the wife is a dallas girl & dedicated Rangers fan, so we need both as we subscribe to now on directv).

    How does one record programs if a cord-cutter -- what device replaces my whole home dvr system?
  • #44 by ImHogginIt on 26 Jun 2017

  • Makes sense. The only thing I see missing on the "biggest" psvue subscription is nbcsn & fsmw (it defaulted me to fssw based on zip code....the wife is a dallas girl & dedicated Rangers fan, so we need both as we subscribe to now on directv).

    How does one record programs if a cord-cutter -- what device replaces my whole home dvr system?

    I need nbcsn for Nascar  :(
  • #45 by sevenof400 on 26 Jun 2017
  • As a hockey fan, I can tell you Play Station Vue indeed has the NBC Sports Network.
    Also, PSV can record programs (holds them for up to 28 days) so you do have a limited sort of DVR capability.

    https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/channels/

    It appears that all four packages include NBCSN.
  • #46 by McKdaddy on 26 Jun 2017
  • As a hockey fan, I can tell you Play Station Vue indeed has the NBC Sports Network.
    Also, PSV can record programs (holds them for up to 28 days) so you do have a limited sort of DVR capability.

    https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/channels/

    It appears that all four packages include NBCSN.

    Thank you -- I clearly overlooked it.
  • #47 by sevenof400 on 26 Jun 2017
  • You're welcome, McKdaddy - it wasn't all that long ago I too cut the cord so I am still in the process of exploring options as well.  At present, I subscribe to PSV / Core Slim and Netflix.  I'm using two Amazon devices (Fire Tv and Fire Stick) on our two televisions so I've also been able to pull down some apps (NBC Sports - which is different from NBCSN, Fox Sports Go, and Watch ESPN) to round out our viewing needs. 

    The PSV account satisfies the cable requirement for Watch ESPN by the way and both the NBC and Fox Sports apps are free.

    It's a work in progress.
  • #48 by hogsanity on 26 Jun 2017
  • You're welcome, McKdaddy - it wasn't all that long ago I too cut the cord so I am still in the process of exploring options as well.  At present, I subscribe to PSV / Core Slim and Netflix.  I'm using two Amazon devices (Fire Tv and Fire Stick) on our two televisions so I've also been able to pull down some apps (NBC Sports - which is different from NBCSN, Fox Sports Go, and Watch ESPN) to round out our viewing needs. 

    The PSV account satisfies the cable requirement for Watch ESPN by the way and both the NBC and Fox Sports apps are free.

    It's a work in progress.

    This is what keeps me from cutting the cord. I do not want to have to subscribe to PSVUE & Hulu and Netflix, and Amazon, and have a antenna and have to have limits on how may tv's I can stream to at once, or have to have multiple fire sticks, etc, with limited or no dvr capability. The convenience of having one bundle is worth it for me.
  • #49 by UAfanatic on 26 Jun 2017
  • The Bottom Line is that cable dying is not the same as the passion of the fans for their teams being dead..

    So there will be another avenue as fans will get their access.. an on-demand type pay structure, or more likely a hulu/netflix for sports fans that may bring in more money for colleges.
  • #50 by gchamblee on 26 Jun 2017
  • This is what keeps me from cutting the cord. I do not want to have to subscribe to PSVUE & Hulu and Netflix, and Amazon, and have a antenna and have to have limits on how may tv's I can stream to at once, or have to have multiple fire sticks, etc, with limited or no dvr capability. The convenience of having one bundle is worth it for me.

    You don't have to have netflix and hulu and amazon. PSVue is a cable replacement. Netflix is like having a blockbuster video store at your disposal, you don't need it. Hulu is like having access to television shows entire seasons to go back and rewatch if you want, old shows too like the rifleman and such... not a requirement just a luxury. Amazon is like netflix if you want it, which I get it simply because I am a prime member and I didn't join for the video, it is just an added bonus. As for buying a stick for each television, it is cheaper than renting equipment from the cable company for 8 bucks a month. I have never run into restriction on how many devices I watch simultaneously.

    I was nervous about making the jump, but do not regret it. And since you read this post, you owe me a $3.95 franchise fee.
Pages:
Actions