Time Warner no longer exists anywhere......once Charter bought them out, IU..... IT'S Charter branded Spectrum much like Comcast is the branded NBC Sports cable RSN's.....
Collapse of Regional Sports Networks (Diamond Sports Group files bankruptcy, Warner-Discovery looking to leave business, Xfinity drops Bally)
- Thread starter Headshot77
- Start date
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
because Spectrum Sportsnet and Spectrum Sportsnet LA are like offered but you have to ask the operator which is ironically the same corporation to turn them on.....
Night Shift
Registered User
It's been speculated that the new ownership group (FSG) already had that planned with the Pens, now theyll be forced to shortly it seems.
Ok Bill Wirtz.
KevFu
Registered User
What's really crazy to me is that the best experience for watching sports in the most convenient and cheapest way... is the out-of-market streaming packages.
In market, I have to pay for cable and all the channels I want to see my teams on... so if I'm in NYC and paying $130 a month to watch Mets/Islanders games, that's $1560 to get every game (and all kinds of other channels I barely watch).
In PHX... $300 for ESPN+ and MLBtv get you everything on MSG/SNY except the Arizona teams; Cost of tickets/food/bar tabs to the half in Arizona, and bar tabs for the Arizona games in New York and you're still saving like $600 bucks over cable.
(And I think this is yet another benefit of an MLB-style alignment as well... )
rsteen
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2022
- 393
- 283
I assume the demand is much, much lower for out-of-market games versus in-market, hence why it's cheaper.
Night Shift
Registered User
I think even if you minus the tickets and just did food and bar those couple times a year or if you felt like watching a Coyotes game for the hell of it, youd still save way more than 600 I would think.
KevFu
Registered User
Well, I'm a classy whiskey drunk. It would be a lot lower if I was a domestic beer drinker.
Night Shift
Registered User
KevFu
Registered User
Not really, for a variety of reasons. Per a very old ESPN poll, it's 60/40 In Market vs Out of Market for the fans favorite team. Those numbers also fall in line with the "percentage of Americans who've moved in their lifetime" stats. Out of Market is probably GROWING.
The main reason Out of Market streaming packages are "cheaper" is because when the leagues made them it was "bonus money." It was new income that didn't exist previously, on a new platform that was just being rolled out.
The price point was set based on the ratio of "people with cable" (Extra Innings/Centre Ice) and "people with high speed internet who'd rather stream." (MLBTV/NHLtv).
The price point of out-of-market CABLE packages was set low to begin with because it was an "Add-on" product to cable customers; and making it too high would cause fans to simply watch the local team included in their cable package instead.
I'd assume that Extra Innings (and Centre Ice) sales have gone drastically down in the last 15 years, because the streaming service is a far more convenient for fans: You don't have to be in front of your home cable box. Every WEST COAST out of market fan would be stupid to get the cable package over streaming, based on 20% of the games being 4 pm PT starts!
But I'd also dispute the idea that out-of-market packages are "cheaper" than in-market streaming packages.
The RSN's made the streaming out of necessity to prevent cord-cutter revenue losses. Sports fans are the overwhelming majority of cord-cutters: 75% of Streaming Video customers are sports fans, per data pulled from the "big five" streaming services (Amazon,, Peacock, Paramount, Netflix, Hulu). And that doesn't include possible people who DON'T buy those services but DO buy direct from leagues.
Direct from League is another factor... Out of Market streaming ISN'T cheaper than RSN in-market streaming... because the product is totally different:
- The league OOM package gives all the teams in the league (because they kind of had to. The OOM fan could like any of the other teams). So while it's technically about 2000+ games you CAN watch, it's really like 150.
- RSN in-market streaming could be giving you TEAMS IN THREE DIFFERENT LEAGUES. It WAS like $300 a year for me to get MLB/NHL streaming in Phoenix; but the RSN stream was $309 in PHX to get DBacks, Coyotes AND SUNS, AND Mercury and Phoenix Rising FC as well.
Long Story Short, the market is robust for league-streaming services selling to everyone, and I'd expect the price points to change drastically now that streaming isn't a "Some nerds will buy it" like it was in 2005.
Sports fans are essentially the only group that have to have BOTH cable/satellite & streaming if they want the option of watching any/every game they want. Especially fans of multiple sports.
People always say that sports fans are the majority of people still with cable/Satellite because they need it for sports.
People also say that sports fans are the majority of cord-cutters.
Streaming doesn't necessarily mean they cut-the-cord. Or vice-versa, someone saying they have cable doesn't mean they have zero streaming services.
It means to watch TNF every week they HAVE TO have Amazon Prime in addition to their cable/sat package. To watch any Premier League match live they have to have Peacock in addition to matches on USA. To watch every game of their favorite or local college sports team they have to get a streaming service, including ones that double-dip and puts one of their teams games behind a streaming service (ND & Peacock, OU & ESPN+, etc.) And on and on. Such as a Yankees fan in NY that has cable to watch the NYY local & national telecast games, but still also has to have/use multiple other streaming services during the season for various packages of games.
Lot of sports fans have both.
Some hockey fans even have both "Center Ice" & ESPN+ for the ESPN+/Hulu exclusive games. Even if they live on the -gasp- West Coast.
I wouldn't assume a sports fan streaming sports automatically means they're a cord-cutter.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 26,113
- 13,503
Just a note for North of the border.
TNF is not on Amazon Prime, just need TSN on your cable or streaming package.
If you want everything North of the border you get Centre Ice (Bell) for out of market( Roger’s has a different name).
Pick one of Bell/Roger’s for in market games.
Streaming is mostly Roger’s, but if Bell you can log into your account through their app and watch.
varsaku
Registered User
KevFu
Registered User
Well, I think that there's plenty of non-sports fans who could have cable and streaming, because the content on streaming services is better/cheaper than adding a "premium" cable tier for example.
But I agree with you that there's too often an over generalization in this kind of convo. Like, the maybe just the majority of cable/streaming subscribers are just sports fans!
LadyStanley
Registered User
Forget the new rules — the biggest story in baseball right now is the collapse of the regional sports networks
How MLB handles this matter will have a huge impact on team revenues and the way fans watch games.
sports.yahoo.com
A look at how MLB is and may handle collapse of RSNs
RangerBoy
Dolan sucks!!!
KevFu
Registered User
In conference realignment talk, I've repeatedly said that ESPN should be considered a sports monopoly that should be broken up like Ma Bell was.
And I think THAT is even more evidence.
And I think THAT is even more evidence.
the problem with that is. Kev, who founded the ACC/SEC/Longhorn Networks and is a major backer of those networks is ESPN.....OR otherwise what would happen if those networks/conferences didn't have that financial backing we'd be seeing more like what is occurring w/ Bally Sports Net
KevFu
Registered User
What do you mean? ESPN has systematically destroyed conferences to lower their expenditures on conference contracts because there's no competition. The ACC/SEC/Longhorn Networks are just how it happened. Look who the SEC added? Texas (aka Longhorn Network).
Just because they launched networks to pay the conferences they invested in doesn't mean they didn't systematically whittle down the number of conferences to whom they were willing to pay.
Back in the day, ESPN had contracts with 14 "power conferences"
You had 7 conferences getting big money (73 schools) - B10, SEC, B12, P10, ACC, BE, C-USA
You had 7 conferences getting medium money (71 schools) - MWC, WAC, A10, CAA, MAC, SBC, MVC.
Everyone else got tiny money.
Now you have two conferences getting huge money (32 schools) - SEC, B10
And you have two conferences getting big money (29 schools) - B12, ACC
And you have one conference getting medium money (14 schools) - AAC
They're paying the same amount of schools, but in five contracts instead of 14.
The FCC already said that Disney couldn't own the Fox Sports regional affiliates because they own ESPN. They should have gone further... They should have made them SELL ESPN.
Say they did that, and Apple/Amazon or Netflix bought ESPN....
ABC/Disney suddenly has no college sports properties... but they know exactly what ESPN was doing! Their first calls are to Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA, the Big 12, Pac-12 and Big Ten.
They might ALSO call Fox, NBC and CBS and explain what ESPN's methods were.
Now you have competition. You have ABC/Disney fighting with ESPN for content.
What's going to be interesting is if this re-draws some of the in-market lines. AT&T Sportsnet Pittsburgh is more like AT&T Pennsylvania due to its coverage area. The major league teams are obviously all based in Pittsburgh, but the channel itself is seen in Ohio, WV, Maryland and all the way across the Commonwealth.
Living near Harrisburg/Hershey, I am in the strange area of the state that gets Baltimore/DC sports channels, AT&T Pittsburgh, and depending on what side of the river you're on, NBC Philly. I am watching with keen interest to see how this plays out - for me to watch the Pens and getting my father-in-law setup to watch the Pirates.
except ABC/DISNEY=SEC/ACC/Longhorn Network.... remember ABC Sports hasn't existed since 2006, Spydey, since when is Longhorn Network a national network carried by either Comcast/Charter...... it's NOT..... SEC/ACC Networks are because you also add in ESPN 2/ESPN News/ESPN U
KevFu
Registered User
You're saying facts that keep showing just how large and a monopoly ESPN is.
ABC Sports doesn't exist because it's redundant. NBC, CBS and Fox have sports divisions, ESPN IS the sports division of ABC/Disney. But the sports division (ESPN) answers to people within Disney. The president of ABC and the president of ESPN are working together in terms of what events are on ABC and what are on ESPN... so the president of ABC knows what's going on.
I'm saying the FCC should have made Disney sell ESPN (the organization, not the one channel). That's all their properties: The contracts they have with every sports league, including SEC, ACC and Longhorn Networks. If a streaming company (Apple) bought the ESPN company...
Disney/ABC would have to start competing with ESPN; and because the President of ABC knows exactly what ESPN was doing, and suddenly HAD to start at a sports division at ABC... he's probably hiring a VP of ESPN (who definitely knows what ESPN was doing with conferences) to be the President of ABC Sports.
HAD THAT HAPPENED, the TV negotiations for the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 that just took place, and the negotiations happening NOW with the Pac-12, would all be vastly different.
ESPN would have more properties than they had airspace for, because they're not able to put games on broadcast TV on ABC if they were spun off. So they probably couldn't get the Big 12 (unless Apple bought a broadcast TV network like Ion first, and even then, they don't have the viewership of the Big Four broadcast networks).
ABC would have to launch a cable sports network (like how CBS has CBSSN, Fox has FS1, and NBC had NBCSN but uses USA now), but they'd jump into the competition to provide live viewer content to Disney/Hulu subscribers.
not the point I was heading there. Kev... would ESPN... AS IT EXISTS NOW.... Have faced dissolution the way you're seeing Bally Sports Net as it is now known as with the recent announcement after the merger of Warner and Discovery and the subsequent announcement that WBD wants out of what it had acquired in the midst of those merger talks..... remember, this combined company includes TNT..... The other part is this: would ESPN if it wasn't already under the Disney banner.... before the dissolution of ABC Sports back in 2006.... there's no need to create or in this case recreate ABC Sports.... based off what we now know Comcast has shuttered both NBCSN and the Olympic Channel in favor of Peacock, which isn't offered as a linear channel as Peacock has essentially controls what Comcast aka NBC now does corporate-wise....
the other issue is would Longhorn Network, the SEC Network and the ACC Network exist as it currently does as linear cable networks if ESPN isn't backing all 3 of those since it's their branding which you can literally see the ESPN logos notably on the ACC Network..... what I mean is would the SEC/ACC have started their own cable networks for Comcast/Charter to must carry status.... if ESPN wasn't backing them whether Disney is backing ESPN to start network.... the point to this solely.... is why dissolve ESPN and have them go down this road that Ballys/Sinclair are heading here no matter who ends up acquiring what these 17 cable networks are doing. would u want to break up the 2 major cable operators in Comcast/Charter because of their diversified portfolios is where I see it as the present time...
KevFu
Registered User
I think you're confusing networks and companies/corporate structure a bit...
ESPN wouldn't be facing any kind of dissolution if they were packaged by Disney as the company of ESPN and sold to, say, Apple. Every single thing about every single "ESPN-owned sports property and channel" would be the same (EXCEPT the "ESPN on ABC" content. All that would just be on the ESPN channel instead of the ABC channel).
The SEC Network, ACC Network, Longhorn Network... still ESPN. It's just that Apple owns ESPN instead of Disney owning ESPN.
The Disney company (with ABC and other cable networks) would have to replenish their sports content, because it was sold to Apple. They'd have to create an "ABC Sports Division" within their company, like Fox, CBS and NBC have --
-- It doesn't matter that NBC shut down NBC Sports NETWORK. NBC Sports is a division within the company that decides what NBC is going to bid on with sports, hires producers/directors/talents for the game broadcasts, etc. ("ABC Sports" was shut down by ABC because it was redundant: The division of the company called "ESPN" was doing the same job as "ABC Sports") --
ABC would need a new sports division, so they'd hire away executives from ESPN (VPs) to build it. They could launch a sports network (like how Fox/FS1, CBS/CBSSN) or use an existing cable channel under their ownership and put sports on it (like NBC/USA).
There's no comparison between RSNs and ESPN's empire of sports networks. RSNs sell to local market only, and ESPN is national. They both have huge rights fees and declining cable subscribers, but ESPN has a more marketable streaming platform because they have a bazillion teams on it and RSNs have... three.
The rights fees ESPN pays are high, but one way they've addressed it by DESTROYING COLLEGE CONFERENCES to save themselves like $1.5 billion over the years.
