Better start planning for a big reduction in television money

[Pork Twain]

You don't have to agree with the premise of the article as to WHY viewership is down, but it is way down.  And this is just the latest in a long trail of information that points to ESPN not being able to give the crazy money they have in the past for college football.  I don't know what is going to happen or how it will all shake out, but I'm pretty sure that the model will change and we should probably begin to think about planning accordingly.

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/01/02/espn-5-6b-debacle-football-semifinal-ratings-32-2014/

I doubt college football has anything to worry about anytime soon

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/11/15/college-football-ratings-2016-season-nfl-ratings-espn-fox-nfl-draft

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/01/01/college-football-playoff-viewership-on-espn-rises-slightly/96064740/

[ErieHog]

What's going to happen is that ESPN is going to break away from under the thumb of cable companies and they'll start their own streaming services... cable's going to die in the form we know now it when ESPN and FOX Sports do break away. People will pay to subscribe to ESPN like they do Netflix or HULU and ESPN will end up generating more bottom dollar without the cable companies. It's just a matter of time.

That'll be a terrible deal-  right now, cable services act as a powerful aide to ESPN;  their content is hyper-expensive, and is passed on to consumers who could get a much better deal on everything else ala carte.

[hogsanity]

That'll be a terrible deal-  right now, cable services act as a powerful aide to ESPN;  their content is hyper-expensive, and is passed on to consumers who could get a much better deal on everything else ala carte.

For years people have wanted ala carte tv, never understanding how much each channel would cost on that type of basis. Not all channels, some are dirt cheap, but channel with decent content are expensive, and will be even more so if they are not being subsidized by making everyone pay for them regardless of whether they watch it or not.

[holeinthewall]

Anything that hurts ESPIN I am for.

Last year the Sporting News reported ESPN might need to repay $20 million to advertisers due to the low ratings.

While sports used to offer Americans a place to get away from political and other divisions to root for a common team, Disney's ESPN instead chose to use their reach to try to shape a liberal agenda, such as labeling those who referred to the Washington Redskins as racists. They never bothered to ask Native Americans, and when the Washington Post finally did and found 9 in 10 did NOT consider the team name racist,

ESPN personality Michael Wilbon

said he was "stunned" by the findings of the poll, thinking the majority of Native Americans would be offended, adding that "this shuts the door on the issue" of changing the Redskins' name."

Wilbon is a racist to his core.

[luke hawg]

Sick boy hit the nail on the head earlier. I'm a "millennial" and refuse to watch commercials. I'll DVR a game start it late a watch it in 1/3 the time. I also just wait and watch it on watch ESPN. I rarely ever watch TV as it's being aired by cable company. In regards to college football, its kind of predictable. The years of any program having a chance are long gone. I mean look at your playoff games. Most the time there a joke. Did anyone really believe Washington had a chance? USC, Alabama, FSU, Florida, Clemson, Miami, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, and Tennessee are the only programs with a chance to win it all. If your a fan of any other team, you can forget it.

[Dr. Starcs]

That rose bowl last night was almost 4 1/2 hours long.

[ChicoHog]

This just looks like Breitbart is taking a known issue and using it to fit their agenda/narrative.

The CFB Playoff and ESPN have recognized that have the New Year's Six on New Years Eve has hurt ratings, and I believe are working this year to change the dates to something other than New Years Eve.

Also, as some here have suggested, I don't believe the viewers who are streaming via Roku/Sling/WatchESPN/etc, are counted towards ratings.

It doesn't necessarily have to do with the "librul" ESPN network, as Breitbart suggests.

They already changed the dates.  I believe the general rule is that the semi finals will be on the Saturday before New Years Day unless New Years falls on a Saturday and then it will be on Friday as the government observes that friday as the official holiday. 

[hog1984]

I get my sports now via streaming ESPN on Roku. It's not people switching when they talk about viewership down. It's ratings which is all viewership of a particular program.

I have cut the cord and reattached it a few times over the past 5 years. I have the Playon app, which allows a live stream channel of several ESPN channels on my Roku, but in reality for me, it has been hit and miss on reliability. A few days ago, I changed my Dish Network programming to the Flex Pack, from the Top 120+, omitting the ESPN and SEC Network channels for a $12/mo savings. I have OTA for the locals.

Early exits of players to the pros has hurt both college football and basketball, thus putting a few teams in control of the best talent. The second tier programs in the power 5 conferences have a harder time competing. When they do get some great talent, they leave early. Hard to build on that.

[Sow Lancelot]

Sow,

You sound similar to Wilson in a lot of this - and that's not a bad thing at all.  College sports were different back in the day - and much better in so many ways. Attending a game was something special back then because you knew you would see, hear and feel in person what made a college gameday so special.  Despite ESPN (and other media outlets) attempts to simulate it, nothing beats the experience of actually attending a college football game when the environment surrounding the game was about the experience in the stadium. 

I still recall watching games at various locations throughout the country, and each stadium was memorable in some way.  The thing was you had to be there to experience it.  I still recall my first game at Fayetteville - sitting up high in the stands taking in all the sights and sounds there were.  It was truly a sensual treat that no TV can ever duplicate.  People were different back then too - most were there to root on their team and you didn't have the obnoxious fans so common to the experience today. 

We have lost a lot when it comes to the football experience and, in part, it contributes to the explanation of the decline of interest in the sport. 

I'll take that as a compliment; may have something to do with both living in South Missco for a period. 

Agreed on all points. Especially about the entitled, obnoxious fans.

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

I agree with sickboy's take on the transformation of the media landscape.

I also think that the money/ratings grab made by the NFL and the college game has greatly contributed to the diminishing integrity of the game and reduced interest.

Constant rules changes to over-promote offense at the expense of defense has transformed the game into a pinball match.
And it was all done to make a grab at the 'casual fan", who is now growing bored with the game from:
A) Never being a real fan of the game to begin with
B) Getting too much of the product
C) Never learning the nuances of the game because they're not truly interested

This has caused:
A) Growing discontentment from real fans
B) Reduced viewing from hardcore fans
C) Fewer hardcore fans being grown by their parents as more fans switch from hardcore to casual

Congrats: Goodell, viewership committees, and marketing being involved with the game.  Maybe in a decade or so we'll have two hockey products in the fall, one on ice and one on turf.

[bob slydell]

The big reason younger demographics don't watch sports on TV is very simple. Advertising. Young people are growing up in a world on streaming services where they do not have to watch a 3 minute block of advertising. They get to jump around to content however they want. There is no way you're going to convince kid's who grow up in that entertainment environment to sit through a broadcast football game that's more than half commercials.

Probably a lot of truth here. But the original selling point of cable was that there would be minimal to no advertising. The networks needed advertisements in order to pay for their programming since the viewer wasn't getting billed. Now (and for decades) we are getting billed and still getting all of the ads. I suspect that all of these services (and a future ESPN streaming service) will figure out how to still sell advertising during their programming. As with cable, consumers will just roll over and take it I'm sure.

[hogsanity]

I agree with sickboy's take on the transformation of the media landscape.

I also think that the money/ratings grab made by the NFL and the college game has greatly contributed to the diminishing integrity of the game and reduced interest.

Constant rules changes to over-promote offense at the expense of defense has transformed the game into a pinball match.
And it was all done to make a grab at the 'casual fan", who is now growing bored with the game from:
A) Never being a real fan of the game to begin with
B) Getting too much of the product
C) Never learning the nuances of the game because they're not truly interested

This has caused:
A) Growing discontentment from real fans
B) Reduced viewing from hardcore fans
C) Fewer hardcore fans being grown by their parents as more fans switch from hardcore to casual

Congrats: Goodell, viewership committees, and marketing being involved with the game.  Maybe in a decade or so we'll have two hockey products in the fall, one on ice and one on turf.

I consider myself to be more than a casual fan, but not as hard core as some of you. My biggest issue with the on field product of college football ( not just Hogs but in general ) is it is boring. Yes, a 56-49 game can be boring. I am tired of seeing 180 plays in a game where 80 are bubble screens, and 40 are the qb running up the middle. Plus, games like that take 4+ hours.  I will dvr a hog game and fast forward through the commercials, the time between plays & halftime, but I will not go to that trouble for other games.

And that is not saying all games are boring. The Rose bowl was not boring, the Sugar bowl was terribly boring. The Cotton Bowl was not boring, but both playoff games were.

You probably have to be my age (46) or older for what I am about to say to make much sense, but college football used to be a precious commodity. Used to have the game of the week or a double header on ABC on Sat. You just hoped the 2:30 game did not run long so you could see the Prudential Post Game score board where they would show hi lites of other games. Then Sunday had various coaches shows we got the ones carried on chn 11 out of Dallas ( they had North TExas, TCU, Baylor, OU ). One of the most exciting moments was during half time of the Monday Night game because thats when they announced the games for the following Sat. 

When USA network started showing a pac10 game on tape delay on Saturday nights, it was a huge deal. Then some of the schools sued for the rights to make other tv deals, and the race to what we have today, about 40 games on tv every Sat, was on. IT is not special to see college football anymore. 

[hogsanity]

Probably a lot of truth here. But the original selling point of cable was that there would be minimal to no advertising.

Where did you come up with that. I have been around the cable business since my dad started building small systems in the late 70's, and I managed 17 systems for over a decade starting in 1988. Minimal advertising was NEVER a selling point.

[bob slydell]

Where did you come up with that. I have been around the cable business since my dad started building small systems in the late 70's, and I managed 17 systems for over a decade starting in 1988. Minimal advertising was NEVER a selling point.

Well, since I can't possibly link my personal experiences here, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the cable point.

But the original statement was that people might be going away from cable because there is a lack of advertisements. I just don't think that a standalone ESPN is going to be commercial free. Unless people are willing to binge their sports programming after the fact.

[hogsanity]

Well, since I can't possibly link my personal experiences here, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the cable point.

But the original statement was that people might be going away from cable because there is a lack of advertisements. I just don't think that a standalone ESPN is going to be commercial free. Unless people are willing to binge their sports programming after the fact.

I agree on the advertising aspect now. I have a 18 yr old that almost never watches tv, very rarely he will sit down and watch part of a game or movie with us. Also agree that a stand alone ESPN is not going to be commercial free, their content costs them way too much. To go commercial free they would have to charge $75 a month for their service, which is cost prohibitive to many people.