CFB Analyst Shake-Up

[MSUDC11]

Joe Tess just got bumped up to the ESPN Primetime game with Todd Blackledge. Like that pairing a lot.

Supposedly ESPN decided not to renew Brad Nessler's contract, which is crazy. He's been my favorite play-by-play guy in recent years.

Rumor has it that he's headed to CBS. Replacing Uncle Verne, perhaps?

 

[DudyDog]

I like Joe Tess a lot too. I thought Nessler and Blackledge were a good pair. Anybody replacing Verne would be good in my book.

I wonder if this will take Tess off of SEC Nation on Saturday mornings? I'm guessing it will.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

ESPN is trying to cut salaries to save money because they are hemorrhaging money.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

It's the only place they can cut money. It seems short sighted to cut ~$10-50 million/yr in talent when you are spending over $2.5 billion/yr on the NBA, $300 million/yr on the SEC (cheap compared to the NBA), and $1.9 billion/yr just for Monday Night Football. They can't do anything to control the costs of the long-term contracts they negotiated, but they can get rid of talent easily. They're going to be so screwed when the contracts get renegotiated.

 

[121Josey]

It's the only place they can cut money. It seems short sighted to cut ~$10-50 million/yr in talent when you are spending over $2.5 billion/yr on the NBA, $300 million/yr on the SEC (cheap compared to the NBA), and $1.9 billion/yr just for Monday Night Football. They can't do anything to control the costs of the long-term contracts they negotiated, but they can get rid of talent easily. They're going to be so screwed when the contracts get renegotiated.

Please explain to me the costs that ESPN can't control, if talent isn't the problem. Shirley you don't think that ESPN is losing $300+ million/yr. I would say its probably more like ~$10-50 million/yr. Whether talent or content, the amount of the renewal of the contract will be determined by profitability and capital. You didn't see ESPN get screwed on the latest NASCAR or B1G deal. ESPN is worried about future revenue levels, which effects all its (subscription) competitors.

In case you were ever worried about ESPN's solvency, let me design a flow chart for you: ESPN > ABC > Disney.

 

[bulldogbaja]

That's an equation**

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Talent isn't the problem as far as their expenses. Even their expenses aren't that big of a problem, though they are overpaying per viewer compared to the other networks. Their big problem is their revenue is shrinking because the cable subscriber base is shrinking. They make approximately $10/mo per subscriber, or $120/yr. If 1 million people cancel cable, they're out $120 million. The number is actually north of half a $billion per year. If they can't grow their revenues, then to balance things out they have to cut expenses. They can't cut the amount they're paying the leagues, so they have to cut production expenses. So big talent is let go, games are remotely covered, etc.

ESPN didn't get screwed on the NASCAR deal because they are currently not airing NASCAR. ESPN is lowballing the Big Ten conference right now and Fox is going to end up with the lion's share of broadcast rights.

ESPN needs to develop an online model asap, and having online streaming for existing cable companies does not do the job. They are worried about pissing off the cable companies by offering an alternative subscription model.

 

[121Josey]

Yeah. That's pretty much what I just wrote. You are still failing to see that when someone pulls the plug on the ESPN family of networks, they are pulling the plug on Fox and FS1 as well as NBC and NBCSN. And all of ESPN's contracts are not going to be renewed simultaneously in 2017 but ESPN will have contracts expiring on an annual basis and thus can renegotiate or move on depending on their short-term economic situation. People aren't going to stop watching sports. People are cutting the cord because they have alternative means to watch to the games (and other entertainment).

The B1G 10 has already signed a deal with Fox for the B1G 10 rights in football and basketball (and they over-payed). For NASCAR, ESPN takes that money and invests it in another contract or developing another sport. But ESPN could come back in X number of years and see an opportunity for growth and profitability in NASCAR.

 

[RocketDawg]

That's an equation**

Mmm ... not really. There's no equal sign.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

You are still failing to see that when someone pulls the plug on the ESPN family of networks, they are pulling the plug on Fox and FS1 as well as NBC and NBCSN.

Except cord cutters (including myself) can still see games on NBC or Fox OTA. I can watch just about every NFL game broadcast each week except for Monday Night Football. If I were so inclined to watch NASCAR, I could watch the races on broadcast TV as well.

ESPN also loses a lot more money per cord cutter than NBC or Fox.

 

[121Josey]

Except cord cutters (including myself) can still see games on NBC or Fox OTA. I can watch just about every NFL game broadcast each week except for Monday Night Football. If I were so inclined to watch NASCAR, I could watch the races on broadcast TV as well.

ESPN also loses a lot more money per cord cutter than NBC or Fox.

Does ABC no longer carry games? C'mon man. You can't watch "just about every NFL game broadcast" on terrestrial channels, same goes for NASCAR. So just give that argument up.

But please do share your experiences of how you hang out at Buffalo Wild Wings on Sundays and watch the games for free.** Cord-cutters talk a good game until they reveal that they have taken up pirating. That money will start coming back when these loopholes start closing. And they'll start closing when financial statements go from black to red.

ESPN loses a lot more money per cord cutter than NBC or Fox because they make more money per cord. *smh*

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

I can't watch every NFL game, but I can usually get as many as I could with basic cable unless I paid for a premium cable package (Sunday Ticket). The only one I'm missing out on is Monday Night Football on ESPN. As far as NASCAR goes, I could watch half of them over the air. But I'm not a NASCAR fan and didn't realize how many were now on FS1 and NBCSN. Sorry. If I were a die-hard fan, I would still have cable and sign up for Sunday Ticket or whatever NASCAR sells.

Fox and NBC have done the smart thing and put the biggest races on broadcast TV. ESPN has taken (almost) everything they own and put it on their cable network. That's why the Daytona 500 is on Fox OTA and the CFB playoffs (and most of the bowl games) are on ESPN. Instead of earning advertising dollars, they earn subscriber dollars. And ESPN does make more per cord than NBC or Fox. A lot more.

And do tell how these "loopholes" are going to be closed. Does ESPN have some magical way of making piracy go away? (Hint: they don't). The best way of closing the loophole is to develop an online subscription model that does not require paying for cable. They seem to be nowhere near having one, except maybe the SlingTV sports package. ESPN pays more than their competitors for their programming and are progressively earning less revenue. The revenue side keeps going down and the only way they can save on programming is to let go of talent or have the announcers do the games remotely.

 

[DerHntr]

I can't watch every NFL game, but I can usually get as many as I could with basic cable unless I paid for a premium cable package (Sunday Ticket). The only one I'm missing out on is Monday Night Football on ESPN. As far as NASCAR goes, I could watch half of them over the air. But I'm not a NASCAR fan and didn't realize how many were now on FS1 and NBCSN. Sorry. If I were a die-hard fan, I would still have cable and sign up for Sunday Ticket or whatever NASCAR sells.

Fox and NBC have done the smart thing and put the biggest races on broadcast TV. ESPN has taken (almost) everything they own and put it on their cable network. That's why the Daytona 500 is on Fox OTA and the CFB playoffs (and most of the bowl games) are on ESPN. Instead of earning advertising dollars, they earn subscriber dollars. And ESPN does make more per cord than NBC or Fox. A lot more.

And do tell how these "loopholes" are going to be closed. Does ESPN have some magical way of making piracy go away? (Hint: they don't). The best way of closing the loophole is to develop an online subscription model that does not require paying for cable. They seem to be nowhere near having one, except maybe the SlingTV sports package. ESPN pays more than their competitors for their programming and are progressively earning less revenue. The revenue side keeps going down and the only way they can save on programming is to let go of talent or have the announcers do the games remotely.

Hulu is their way to do it. Disney has a major stake in Hulu and they announced last week they intend to upgrade the product to a "skinny bundle." In other words, they can offer the entire family of channels owned by Disney, including ESPN of course, and the channels of their joint venture partners (Fox and Comcast). It will be similar to SlingTv but it will be supported on AppleTV where SlingTV doesn't currently have that platform. Last, Hulu grew significantly last year. They now have 15 million users and well over $1B in revenue. I just hope they can price it right.