This topic contains 14 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by Kevin Kinder .
September 19, 2019 at 11:56 am #99018
Not sure if there’s been any discussion as to what benefit the
move (downward?) to ESPN + is to the conference and teams?
If so, I missed it.
I’m assuming that there is more money coming in?
The exposure for the BIG12 and teams is debatable!
My first thoughts were that my friends, relatives and just the
public in general will NOT be watching as much WVU sports
as they did before. They just had to turn in the tv to access
ESPN, ESPN2, etc. and the availability was there. They’re not
going to go thru the hassle that rabid WVU fans will to see
the Mounraineers play! Not sure that it will even be available
in the bars around the country or even West Virginia where
many fans watched?September 19, 2019 at 12:13 pm #99020
ESPN has overpaid for rights to a variety of sports.
College football has the among the most rabid and loyal fans of any sport.
Web based broadcasts are the wave of the future.
Slowly moving as much content as possible to on-line, pay for service platforms is the answer to their financial w0es.
I suspect a 12 game college season will be “tiered” well beyond what exists today with 6-8 games slated for tiers slated for TV broadcast and tiers 3-4 (or however you want to label them) slated for on line broadcast.
Further down the road is the a la carte services… buy individual team games, buy conference packages, buy full CFB programming. It just makes business sense if you are the networks.September 19, 2019 at 1:26 pm #99026
You lost me on that one!😜
But like Yogi said, “I’ll see it when I Believe it “!
Looking down the complete year of ESPN + gamed,
we are the only Power 5 conference with any games on it!
Have we declared ESPN+ our pseudo conference network?
Which we share with teams from lesser conferences?
An apartment with shared bathroom?
If there’s a movement to web based tv were definitely in
on the ground floor!!September 19, 2019 at 1:49 pm #99028
We used to get games Free on ESPN, ESPN2. Now we have to pay for them.
B12 gets a pittance of extra money from ESPiN to move some games to ESPN+. ESPiN gets a shitload of money from the B12 fans that have to pay to see their games.
Fans get screwed again. UT and OU get to opt out. Funny how that happens.
IMO Bowlsby is just as bad as the jackwads that ran the BE into the ground.September 19, 2019 at 3:01 pm #99040
These are my thoughts on ESPN+ and the future of streaming sports from a rural West Virginia perspective.
On-line streaming for WVU sports is a poor delivery model for a lot of rural West Virginians due to poor (or zero) high speed service. Personally, I have to use satellite Internet where I live in Greenbrier County. Directv or Dish is often the only way these folks can watch games
— Jeff Cobb (@Jeffery_Cobb) September 18, 2019
My only option for Internet is satellite. And I only live 15 minutes outside of a major city (Lewisburg). Suddenlink High Speed Internet is available 3 miles from my home, but they will not run a line down the road. Frontier, which I used to have, averaged a robust 1-3 Mbps… when it worked. We could not watch Netflix, Prime, or stream a sports broadcast. I can do that now thanks to Viasat. But at a substantial cost.
My point being, a lot of West Virginia fans live in the hills and hollars where High Speed Internet is either unavailable, or very costly. Even though folks are pissed at Bowlsby and the Big 12, the fact is we would be in the same situation if we were in the ACC because we’d have to subscribe to ACCN to watch a lot of the games.September 19, 2019 at 4:25 pm #99042
Yes, simple economics, they buy the games and they will develop more profitable ways to broadcast them. On line “pay per view” is what’s coming and it won’t just be WV but even some of the big boys in short time.September 19, 2019 at 5:31 pm #99043
This is what we get for not having a B12 Network.September 19, 2019 at 6:51 pm #99058
Yes the Big 12 is using ESPN + as its de facto network. There is no surprise in this – we’ve been reporting on it for months.
There are negatives, but here is a positive. You can get ESPN+ wherever you have an internet connection. Jeff’s points are good ones and yet another reason that WV needs to invest in broadband for all.
But, that aside, say you are a Pac 12 fan. You can’t get the Pac 12 network at all in many areas, because individual cable companies, sattelite providers, etc, won’t carry it because they can’t come to an agreement. No such problems here, plus the Big 12 didn’t have to invest $20 million in equipment, studios, etc. for its own network. Had it done so, that’s a lot of money that now doesn’t get paid to the member schools. That, in te words of Radar O’Reilly, is highly significant.
Again, I understand the negatives. But there are also corresponding positives, and to just rip it because the Big 12 didn’t do it the way the ACC or PAc 12 did is to not acknowledge the overall picture.September 20, 2019 at 8:58 am #99073
Pitiful Frontier: I hope you are watching these posts. Subscribe to Frontier for wonderful slow speed internet. They must be so proud.September 20, 2019 at 9:19 am #99075
Kevin, I actually think it was a smart move to use ESPN+ as a de factor Big 12 Network. The only downside is the migration towards more streaming content which will be unavailable to rural folks with slow Internet speeds. I’m sure there are other pockets of fans in other markets having similar problems accessing content. So to be clear, it’s not just a WV problem. It’s a problem in general for all rural areas across the country.September 20, 2019 at 9:22 am #99076
Defacto network my ass. ESPiN took Bowlsby to the cleaners to launch their streaming side. B12 network would give us access to all of the games, just like the ACC, B1G, SEC, B12. Now we are relegated to a sub tier internet property that gives us less coverage. Those in rural areas may not have ANY accessibility to this. Bowlsby got hosed and we are paying for it.September 20, 2019 at 11:15 am #99083
From the discussion it appears that the general thought is that
this “arrangement” was either forced upon us or it was one
made by the conference!?
If it was forced on us then it appears as a “fake it or leave it”
option! Not sure what recourse we had in this case?
If it was instigated by the conference then the original question
posed of what is/are the benefits has not been addressed!
For the fans., there already exists both local AT&T tv along
with free streaming access outside the area for third tier
broadcasts. Now it will have to e paid for!
So what is the benefit to the conference!September 20, 2019 at 12:34 pm #99088
If you live in an area with poor or zero Internet service, than chances are you have poor or zero Cable TV options as well.
If ESPN+ was a channel that Directv or Dish Network carried, that would be a much more acceptable model than streaming because the majority of the folks without Internet or Cable have already moved on to Satellite tv.September 20, 2019 at 1:48 pm #99096
Kevin, I actually think it was a smart move to use ESPN+ as a de factor Big 12 Network. The only downside is the migration towards more streaming content which will be unavailable to rural folks with slow Internet speeds. I’m sure there are other pockets of fans in other markets having similar problems accessing content. So to be clear, it’s not just a WV problem. It’s a problem in general for all rural areas across the country.
Agreed Jeff. I just don’t want it to seem like I’m saying that the Big 12 should ignore the issue of slow speeds in rural areas. I would guess it’s also a problem in some areas of Iowa, Kansas Oklahoma and Texas. I do have sympathy for those of you who are still battling that problem.
This is sort of a separate issue, but in 2019 having reliable and reasnably speedy Internet access is like having clean water and sanitation a generation ago. It is a necessity of life now, and needs to be addressed nationwide.September 20, 2019 at 1:55 pm #99097
B12 network would give us access to all of the games, just like the ACC, B1G, SEC, B12. Now we are relegated to a sub tier internet property that gives us less coverage. Those in rural areas may not have ANY accessibility to this. Bowlsby got hosed and we are paying for it.
Once again, a dedicated broadcast Big 12 network WOULD NOT give everyone access to all the Big 12 games. There are many people who can’t get the dedicated networks of other leages because their local cable provider or satellite outlet don’t carry them. I understand that you disagree with the path the Big 12 took, and that’s ok. But to keep repeating that a dedicated Big 12 network would put the games up for everyone simply isn’t accurate.
Also still looking for responses to the statement from earlier. Would it be ok to have a dedicated Big 12 network if that took $10-12million out of the pockets of each member school?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.