OT: Sports TV bubble has burst for Time Warner in LA

Submitted by karpodiem on

Link - https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Cant-Get-Competitors-to-Buy-LA-SportNet-136609?r=0.77829617214659

Some people have suggested the next B1G TV deal is going to be really big. I don't see that as the case - since ESPN is paired up with the SEC, who are the two parties required to bid this beyond what it is today? 

The only two entities I see capable of that are NBC Sports (cable channel that Comcast owns) and Fox. And I just don't see either of them paying that much of a premium beyond what is being paid today.

Canadian

April 1st, 2016 at 1:47 PM ^

ESPN is not available on Canadian television. If it's Rogers doing it tsn likely won't be on it as tsn is owned by Rogers main competition Bell.

I don't know about this streaming stuff as I have Dish Network.

Everyone Murders

April 1st, 2016 at 11:48 AM ^

I think that the B1G should concentrate on a lengthy deal, rather than a shorter contract.  10 years for slightly less money would be much better than 5-7 years for slightly more, IMO.

All we need are two networks that are in sufficient denial, and we can make a last money grab before that industry realizes people are pulling the plug.

blueinbelfast

April 1st, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^

In the broad sense, there is truth in your overall point.  However, the article linked to here is about a local sports channel.  That's a totally different animal from the national networks.  The model for the local networks is completely different, with absolute dependency on commitment to local teams.  And I would not want to depend on that commitment in LA.

SAMgO

April 1st, 2016 at 1:42 PM ^

The impact that their addition has had on our recrutiing success in New Jersey is debatable at best. It just seems to be a new emphasis point for Michigan and is a state where Michigan already gets a lot of exposure due to the high number of alums in the area.

WolvinLA2

April 1st, 2016 at 3:02 PM ^

It's certainly debatable, but for the parents, playing twice nearby and getting all games on BTN sure doesn't hurt.  I'm sure our coaches are doing a lot of recruiting when we play at Rutgers.  I'm certainly not saying that's the full reason, but I would lean toward it being part of it.

MGlobules

April 1st, 2016 at 12:01 PM ^

I  do not have cable and have not had it for a while. Every now and then I get stuck with a game I want to watch not available on some pirate feed. And sometimes the picture is not great. But when I think of the lengths I would have to go to to get these two or three networks in to see the occasional fixture that's unavailable. . . more work than tracking it down on the internet. Period.

And this is the truly crazy thing, to me. I have Comcast phone and internet. But ESPN isn't furnished with my package, which is just dumb--not even on the "internet television" that they furnish. Who is hurting who? I'm already at 90-plus bucks a month and just feel--no--I am not going to go over 100 just to catch a more pristine emission of maybe one event a month. Can't justify it to myself.

So many companies reap so much more ill will with their silly penny-grubbing than they ever obtain. . . The stance just becomes one of hostility toward them by consumers.

Gameboy

April 1st, 2016 at 12:31 PM ^

I have Comcast cable and internet and I pay $99/month (plus tax& fees). With that, I get BTN, ESPN, and HBO. Pretty much everything I want from cable. I am pretty happy with it.

The key is having your own hardware, modem and set top boxes. Those fees really pile up fast.

East German Judge

April 1st, 2016 at 12:02 PM ^

Keep in mind this is LA we are taking about. A huge metropolitan area that previously had their NFL teams leave and has 2 storied college football teams that do not sell out.

WolvinLA2

April 1st, 2016 at 12:43 PM ^

Although I agree with your overall point about LA, you can't just lump every team together.  Detroit doesn't support the Pistons and Wings the same, for example.  

The Dodgers are huge in LA, along with the Lakers, and are universally supported even when they aren't good (and they are right now).  LA isn't an incredible sports town like Detroit or Boston for all sports, but it's a big baseball town.  I believe the Dodgers lead the MLB in attendance and the Angels are near the top every year as well.  

Time Warner massively overpaid for this, but the issue here isn't that the Dodgers don't have a huge following.  It's that TWC is asking DirecTV way too much and enough people aren't going to switch their cable provider for one sport.  

karpodiem

April 1st, 2016 at 1:05 PM ^

I think they'll bid - but only to lighten the wallets of their competitors. NBC/Fox are the only ones in play, and other than broadcasting ND games, I don't think NBC has much experience with carrying a whole conference. So it's Fox or bust. And as much as I would love to see a bluff bid turn into a winning bid for one of the other networks, I'm resigned to it being Fox. 

Fox has to know this, so I think they'll be pretty reserved in their bidding.

WolvinLA2

April 1st, 2016 at 1:18 PM ^

Why do you think ESPN/ABC won't be interested?  That would be a huge loss for them in terms of Saturday broadcasting, and I don't think they have enough to fill their channels without the Big Ten.  WIthout us, the only primary rights they have are the ACC, so they'd have the biggest ACC games (which most weeks aren't any good) and whatever SEC games CBS doesn't want (which might be better than ACC some weeks, but still not top tier).  What are they going to play on ABC on Saturday nights?  Clemson-Pitt?  Arkansas-Tennessee?  

I'm not saying ESPN will certainly get it, but I'd actually be surprised if they didn't.  Unless you know something I don't.

karpodiem

April 1st, 2016 at 3:38 PM ^

and producing/running a channel that carries as much programming as the BTN does for the conference. I just don't see ABC/ESPN interested in creating/managing that. The only thing that's come close to that sort of programming is the Longhorn Network, and that's been a disaster (financially) for them.

As bad as the B1G is with respect to their commentary and video production, they have a pretty big challenge with respect to producing all the content that they do.

WolvinLA2

April 1st, 2016 at 4:58 PM ^

Why do you think ABC/ESPN will be producing and running a channel for us?  I don't believe that's being discussed.  The TV rights would just be for airing our games, just like they do for the ACC and other leagues.  

Do you have additional information that you haven't brought up?  Because I haven't heard that what you're discussing has even been, er, discussed.  Right now, ABC/ESPN has our primary rights and everything else goes on BTN.  It's our primary right contract that is up for renewal, so that's what is being negotiated, correct?  Not the creation of an additional network.

WolvinLA2

April 1st, 2016 at 12:27 PM ^

What does ESPN being paired up with the SEC have anything to do with it?  ESPN has always convered more than one conference and will continue to do so.  

And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't CBS have primary rights for the SEC?  The SEC Network is secondary, just like BTN is for us.  So we could still have ESPN/ABC as our primary with BTN as our secondary, and Fox, ESPN/ABC and CBS would likely be bidding for our deal.

I still think the contract will be huge because it's mostly networks bidding for these, and live sports is their last bastien of TV revenue.  Big Ten fans will still tune in for their team's games, and if you're bidding on primary TV rights, you're bidding on games featuring, Michigan, OSU and Penn State, not Rutgers and Indiana.  You think ABC wants to give up Michigan-OSU, Michigan-Michigan St or OSU-MSU?  Or all the big non-conference games on the upcoming schedule?

M-Dog

April 1st, 2016 at 12:42 PM ^

I'm all for ESPN/ABC keeping Big Ten coverage.  Because they have a lot of outlets for live games - ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, etc.

I could not care less if they live on the SEC's knob or not.  I don't pay serious attention to their "analysts".  It's just entertainment.

What I really want is live coverage on channels that I can easily get at home and when I'm traveling.  That's ESPN/ABC.

 

WolvinLA2

April 1st, 2016 at 12:48 PM ^

Yeah, I don't think ESPN hyping the SEC has as much to do with their TV affiliations as it has to do with their massive fanbase and their recent success.  And even that is only reflected in the analysis part of ESPN, not the actual broadcasting.  It's not like the ESPN analysts are bringing up the SEC during a Big Ten football broadcast.  

And most networks have multiple allegiances.  ESPN has rights to the ACC, SEC and Big Ten. Fox has the primary rights to the Pac-12 but also owns half of BTN.  They just want good material to broadcast and the Big Ten will always be that.

WolvinLA2

April 1st, 2016 at 1:20 PM ^

On most football Saturdays, 2 of ABC's 3 or 4 biggest games are Big Ten games.  What are they going to replace those with?  I don't think it has anything to do with loyalty either, but as long as ABC is in the college football business (and they are), the best way for them to make money is buy broadcasting the Big Ten.

doggdetroit

April 1st, 2016 at 1:23 PM ^

ESPN/ABC will split the rights with Fox. Both entities save money and the B1G will still reap a massive windfall, likely surpassing the SEC.