Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
I agree but Rob Ryan has been run out of town the last two stops he's made. When Buffalo eats shit this year I'm looking forward to having both him and the other one gone for a while.
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
The only thing I know about Katie Nolan is that she has turned Human Flop Sweat Rob Ryan into a meme and I'll hate her forever for it. He's been a joke since he was in Cleveland.
0
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
According to 2016 Nielsen data ESPN lost over 1.5 million subscribers from February to the end of May this year. That drops ESPN to 89,465,000 subscriber homes, a precipitous decline from the network's total number of 2013 subscribers which was over 99 million. Based on these numbers over the past four months ESPN lost an average of 10,400 subscribers a day.
subscribers? I thought espn was one of those basic inclusions in cable packages
Being on cable means they have subscribers. ESPN is also one of the more expensive single pieces of a given cable bill, often included as part of the "anything beyond your local channels."
I canceled cable and got a digital antenna, which allows me to catch the live sports that are on cbs/fox etc.
So I miss Monday night football and Thursday night football (ha), but can watch all of the other games. I miss baseball, but I can get mlb.tv if i really wanted and it would be cheaper than monthly cable to get all of just my team's games.
It might be worth it to look into cell providers here too.
I know Verizon has NFL coverage included in their stuff, and T-Mobile gives out free subs to MLB.TV; I'm not sure about NBA and NHL, as well as college sports and everything else. Obviously it's a bad idea to have an account with all the carriers, but you might be able to sub one for Cable if that's the sport(s) you follow.
0
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
subscribers? I thought espn was one of those basic inclusions in cable packages
More cable providers are offering a "skinny" base cable with a range of packages and cable providers are more prone now than before to put ESPN because ESPN keeps getting more expensive on account of how much ESPN had to pay leagues to air their games.
from what I understand you can't cut out specific channels though, you either have the whole package which would include ESPN, or you don't
No, but you can cut the package that has ESPN and the 30 other channels you're most likely to want, and it's far and away the most expensive.
You can cut away packages, and cable companies will offer you the "8 channels you'd get over the air" as a bare bones.
Most people who have cable or satellite are paying for ESPN, and those are the subscriber numbers being referenced. ESPN is losing them because people are cutting the cord and using antennas + Netflix/et al and those people don't pay ESPN shit.
ESPN made a lot of big bets over the last ten years that their assumptions about subscriber growth were correct and they'd sail past 100M and be able to easily afford the billions they pay to MLB and the NFL. Decreasing subscriber numbers is terrifying for them.
can you feel the struggle within?
+3
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
They're paying way more for NBA than they are MLB too.
from what I understand you can't cut out specific channels though, you either have the whole package which would include ESPN, or you don't
No, but you can cut the package that has ESPN and the 30 other channels you're most likely to want, and it's far and away the most expensive.
You can cut away packages, and cable companies will offer you the "8 channels you'd get over the air" as a bare bones.
Most people who have cable or satellite are paying for ESPN, and those are the subscriber numbers being referenced. ESPN is losing them because people are cutting the cord and using antennas + Netflix/et al and those people don't pay ESPN shit.
ESPN made a lot of big bets over the last ten years that their assumptions about subscriber growth were correct and they'd sail past 100M and be able to easily afford the billions they pay to MLB and the NFL. Decreasing subscriber numbers is terrifying for them.
Which they could fix very easily* by allowing ME to give them $5 a month instead of giving my cable company $60 a month and pass ESPN $4.
*For values of 'easily' that include getting out of whatever fuck awful contract they have with the cable providers.
I wonder if those medical records will include psychological cases
that would lead to some polarizing stuff
Xehalus on
0
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I'm sitting with a coworker taking about football and she just told me she firmly believe the Super Bowl champion is determined ahead of time and its all rigged by the NFL and that's why her Detroit Lions never win
I'm sitting with a coworker taking about football and she just told me she firmly believe the Super Bowl champion is determined ahead of time and its all rigged by the NFL and that's why her Detroit Lions never win
I personally subscribe to mummy rays or mole people as other valid conspiracies holding the Lions back
from what I understand you can't cut out specific channels though, you either have the whole package which would include ESPN, or you don't
No, but you can cut the package that has ESPN and the 30 other channels you're most likely to want, and it's far and away the most expensive.
You can cut away packages, and cable companies will offer you the "8 channels you'd get over the air" as a bare bones.
Most people who have cable or satellite are paying for ESPN, and those are the subscriber numbers being referenced. ESPN is losing them because people are cutting the cord and using antennas + Netflix/et al and those people don't pay ESPN shit.
ESPN made a lot of big bets over the last ten years that their assumptions about subscriber growth were correct and they'd sail past 100M and be able to easily afford the billions they pay to MLB and the NFL. Decreasing subscriber numbers is terrifying for them.
Which they could fix very easily* by allowing ME to give them $5 a month instead of giving my cable company $60 a month and pass ESPN $4.
*For values of 'easily' that include getting out of whatever fuck awful contract they have with the cable providers.
A la cart cable pricing has been a big issue for a while. ESPN is one of the big dogs in the room, along with HBO and a few others. ESPN is getting more money now than they probably would otherwise. HBO wasn't so they created HBO Now. ESPN could do it, and they probably will eventually, but they almost certainly preferred having everyone basically pay them for having cable up until now whether they wanted ESPN or not.
This gets us into really interesting discussions about the value of cable (and underlying infrastructure), the ballooning value of live sports (basically the prime reason a lot of people still pay for cable and why a lot of teams who can (read: MLB) are just buying/building their own networks), and what ESPN and other networks' role and eventual value will be. It's stupid that most people can't buy Sunday Ticket by itself or get blacked out of MLB.tv in their home city, much like it was stupid that many people would get blacked out of seeing their own team over the air for a long time (even though it still happens, though it's far more rare these days). Who can see what, how, when, and how much they'll pay and to who are really interesting questions these days.
I'm not an expert here but find a lot of the conversation really interesting as I pay for MLB.tv and have bought a DirecTV-less Sunday ticket (through DirecTV) in the past. I don't pay for cable but do value live sports highly, so I end up trying to follow a lot of what goes on in this space.
Six on
can you feel the struggle within?
0
AngryThe glory I had witnessedwas just a sleight of handRegistered Userregular
I'm sitting with a coworker taking about football and she just told me she firmly believe the Super Bowl champion is determined ahead of time and its all rigged by the NFL and that's why her Detroit Lions never win
I wish I still thought highly enough of my Lions to think this.
So Cam Newton has a show on Nick where he "helps kids with their dreams." I have no idea what that means, but it's Cam and kids and he's helping them, so that's awesome.
+4
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
So Cam Newton has a show on Nick where he "helps kids with their dreams." I have no idea what that means, but it's Cam and kids and he's helping them, so that's awesome.
I've heard nothing about this. I guess ESPN is too busy covering committed crimes and such to dedicate time to something positive.
I knew about it quite awhile ago but I think that's probably just because I'm a Panthers fan. This is probably the first time it's come up on ESPN and that is a shame.
+1
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
So both the Browns and 49ers are preseason underdogs for all 16 games.
Posts
...that's the quote, isn't it?
Steam
haha get fucked
I bet the press conference is attended by more people than the game.
Being on cable means they have subscribers. ESPN is also one of the more expensive single pieces of a given cable bill, often included as part of the "anything beyond your local channels."
I agreed but that's a lie. I only have cable because it was included with my apartment. But that's the only thing I would think about having.
So I miss Monday night football and Thursday night football (ha), but can watch all of the other games. I miss baseball, but I can get mlb.tv if i really wanted and it would be cheaper than monthly cable to get all of just my team's games.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
I know Verizon has NFL coverage included in their stuff, and T-Mobile gives out free subs to MLB.TV; I'm not sure about NBA and NHL, as well as college sports and everything else. Obviously it's a bad idea to have an account with all the carriers, but you might be able to sub one for Cable if that's the sport(s) you follow.
More cable providers are offering a "skinny" base cable with a range of packages and cable providers are more prone now than before to put ESPN because ESPN keeps getting more expensive on account of how much ESPN had to pay leagues to air their games.
No, but you can cut the package that has ESPN and the 30 other channels you're most likely to want, and it's far and away the most expensive.
You can cut away packages, and cable companies will offer you the "8 channels you'd get over the air" as a bare bones.
Most people who have cable or satellite are paying for ESPN, and those are the subscriber numbers being referenced. ESPN is losing them because people are cutting the cord and using antennas + Netflix/et al and those people don't pay ESPN shit.
ESPN made a lot of big bets over the last ten years that their assumptions about subscriber growth were correct and they'd sail past 100M and be able to easily afford the billions they pay to MLB and the NFL. Decreasing subscriber numbers is terrifying for them.
Happened and it's back to being AFC vs NFC. Whatever, it's the Pro Bowl
jesus christ
Steam
Which they could fix very easily* by allowing ME to give them $5 a month instead of giving my cable company $60 a month and pass ESPN $4.
*For values of 'easily' that include getting out of whatever fuck awful contract they have with the cable providers.
that would lead to some polarizing stuff
I personally subscribe to mummy rays or mole people as other valid conspiracies holding the Lions back
Steam
A la cart cable pricing has been a big issue for a while. ESPN is one of the big dogs in the room, along with HBO and a few others. ESPN is getting more money now than they probably would otherwise. HBO wasn't so they created HBO Now. ESPN could do it, and they probably will eventually, but they almost certainly preferred having everyone basically pay them for having cable up until now whether they wanted ESPN or not.
This gets us into really interesting discussions about the value of cable (and underlying infrastructure), the ballooning value of live sports (basically the prime reason a lot of people still pay for cable and why a lot of teams who can (read: MLB) are just buying/building their own networks), and what ESPN and other networks' role and eventual value will be. It's stupid that most people can't buy Sunday Ticket by itself or get blacked out of MLB.tv in their home city, much like it was stupid that many people would get blacked out of seeing their own team over the air for a long time (even though it still happens, though it's far more rare these days). Who can see what, how, when, and how much they'll pay and to who are really interesting questions these days.
I'm not an expert here but find a lot of the conversation really interesting as I pay for MLB.tv and have bought a DirecTV-less Sunday ticket (through DirecTV) in the past. I don't pay for cable but do value live sports highly, so I end up trying to follow a lot of what goes on in this space.
Props to the reporters there for not letting him get away with that bullshit excuse.
it's a horrible situation but I think his intentions were earnest
it wasn't an innocent person
I wish I still thought highly enough of my Lions to think this.
I've heard nothing about this. I guess ESPN is too busy covering committed crimes and such to dedicate time to something positive.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/two-nfl-teams-aren-t-favored-once-this-season-by-las-vegas-203203127.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
Damn