ADVERTISEMENT

ESPN Layoffs and what it means for future TV deals

Should this thread be moved to Crossfire?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 56.0%
  • No

    Votes: 11 44.0%

  • Total voters
    25
No political party claims Caitlyn Jenner. ESPN and E! are the only entities that really did/do.

She's an unapologetic conservative. Other than the one issue that personally affects her, of course.

LBGTQ pretty much doesn't claim her either. It was never about the cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gold*
You don't think one party and/or political philosophy supports and promotes LBGTQ rights? 78% of self identified LBGT voters supported Clinton in 2016 while Trump carried 14%. That's the definition of owning the transgender issue. Other than African Americans this was the largest divide among voter groups. As someone who supports equal rights and access for all I have no issues with the cause. However, to paint the transgender issue as non-political is simply incorrect. Hell....what isn't political these days in our divided nation?

When 61% of ESPN viewers believes it leans left to act like those on this board who believe the same are in the minority is disingenuous.

I'm impressed you have time to care that I care :)



Seriously, I think your poll is BS. Most ESPN viewers don't care. They are watching because they don't want to watch politics. They'd rather watch the game or listen to Stephen A say crazy things.

I'm responding because I'm sick of political discourse that makes everything liberal or conservative and because I'm tired of liberals in Oklahoma being labeled a certain way. I want us to find public education appropriately and pay teachers a living wage, which makes me very livers my the standards of Oklahoma. That's silly.
 
[ I'm sick of political discourse that makes everything liberal or conservative and because I'm tired of liberals in Oklahoma being labeled a certain way. I want us to find public education appropriately and pay teachers a living wage, which makes me very livers my the standards of Oklahoma. That's silly.

Agree. I probably have as many issues with our state government as anyone here. I also assume I have as many issues with the Christian conservatives as anyone on here too. However, that discussion is for the Crossfire board which is likely where this thread belonged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gold*
That does it!!!!!
2017.03.06-06.15-tellmenow-58bda7382eabd.png
 
By the way, I added a Poll to this thread, asking "Should it be moved to Crossfire?" What say you? (It's at the top of the page)
It wasn't started as that, I can assure you...the thread was started to discuss the potential impact on future TV contracts and $ amounts for the AAC since the layoffs are a sign ESPN is wanting to cut costs and we can assume that the next step is to reign in the ridiculous rights fees contracts for their live event content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUBballJunkie
It wasn't started as that, I can assure you...the thread was started to discuss the potential impact on future TV contracts and $ amounts for the AAC since the layoffs are a sign ESPN is wanting to cut costs and we can assume that the next step is to reign in the ridiculous rights fees contracts for their live event content.

Things always fall apart once a thread begins mentioning Boston sports!!!!1111

(I'm just giving you a hard time and wanted to add levity to this thread. Or if levity doesn't work derailing can happen too)

Also @Gold* huge plus one on giving living wages to teachers/staff in Oklahoma public schools. My wife worked in Oklahoma public schools until we just moved and moving to Missouri she got a > 33% raise just by taking the same job in a neighboring state.
 
You don't think one party and/or political philosophy supports and promotes LBGTQ rights? 78% of self identified LBGT voters supported Clinton in 2016 while Trump carried 14%. That's the definition of owning the transgender issue. Other than African Americans this was the largest divide among voter groups. As someone who supports equal rights and access for all I have no issues with the cause. However, to paint the transgender issue as non-political is simply incorrect. Hell....what isn't political these days in our divided nation?

When 61% of ESPN viewers believes it leans left to act like those on this board who believe the same are in the minority is disingenuous.

I'm impressed you have time to care that I care :)
But because you do a story on an athlete who is gay and perhaps the first one to openly come out before the NFL draft, or a story on an athlete is is making a body change due to transgender identity doesn't necessarily mean you are pushing an agenda. They are both stories pertinent to their area of coverage. Is covering women's basketball, which has a higher rate of players who identify as homosexual or bisexual than the normal public does, pushing a liberal agenda? That is the argument some on here would make.
 
That's a big issue with me when it comes to sports broadcasting. I enjoy watching the olympics and back in the day you got to watch entire competitions, winners and losers, successes and failures. Once The networks started their "up-close and personal" coverage you get 5 minutes of highlights surrounded by a half hour of human interest stories. This human isn't interested.
You don't like the hot dog broadcasting method?(99% filler)

But because you do a story on an athlete who is gay and perhaps the first one to openly come out before the NFL draft, or a story on an athlete is is making a body change due to transgender identity doesn't necessarily mean you are pushing an agenda. They are both stories pertinent to their area of coverage. Is covering women's basketball, which has a higher rate of players who identify as homosexual or bisexual than the normal public does, pushing a liberal agenda? That is the argument some on here would make.
Stoke those embers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmullinsTU
It wasn't started as that, I can assure you...the thread was started to discuss the potential impact on future TV contracts and $ amounts for the AAC since the layoffs are a sign ESPN is wanting to cut costs and we can assume that the next step is to reign in the ridiculous rights fees contracts for their live event content.
Absolutely, and I think it's a good discussion topic...it just morphed into something completely different unfortunately. Even I played into the hijacking by throwing Based Stickman into the mix...but I was unable to get anyone to bite on that.
 
I don't think this thread is that bad or that anyone is saying anything that outlandish. Except for the tinfoil hat part about the alleged liberal agenda at ESPN. But even that was handled fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmullinsTU
I think Stephen A.(merica) would look great in a Based Stick costume in October. Would look bigly great for his show, Disney would love it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris Harmon
It wasn't started as that, I can assure you...the thread was started to discuss the potential impact on future TV contracts
and $ amounts for the AAC since the layoffs are a sign ESPN is wanting to cut costs and we can assume that the next
step is to reign in the ridiculous rights fees contracts for their live event content.

Which should also probably have been on Crossfire.....This thread is to sports as ESPN is to sports....That's
why they are both failures......Worthless reading headed NOWHERE!.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmullinsTU
The WAC and/or Mtn West is already considering its own digital package of delivering its games. I would think the AAC would also be investigating those options. If done right, that would totally eliminate all this Thurs/Fri night bull:crap: we succumb to. Like ole' Degeneration-X used to say ... "if you're not down with that, we got two words for ya ... SUCK IT!"

* Does childish suck-it maneuver at Bristol, Conn. *
 
And how many MW games did you watch last year? How many were on at the bar? I watched none. An embarrassing amount of MAC games though since they were accessible.

That's death for leagues like ours.

ESPN is the worst but it's them or bust.

Plus my degenerate childless self loves Thursday and Friday night games and excuses for more beer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: el duran
Correction, I watched part of one. Tulsa at Fresno on twitter was a nightmare on Ponca City wifi on my iPad all alone.

No thank you.
 
The WAC and/or Mtn West is already considering its own digital package of delivering its games. I would think the AAC would also be investigating those options. If done right, that would totally eliminate all this Thurs/Fri night bull:crap: we succumb to. Like ole' Degeneration-X used to say ... "if you're not down with that, we got two words for ya ... SUCK IT!"

* Does childish suck-it maneuver at Bristol, Conn. *
Actually didn't Aresco say the AAC was looking at a streaming option with Amazon?
 
still a worthless thread about politics - geez people can we agree to disagree about the value of diversity and the value of a stupid, clueless tweeting president (oops) - unless the focus is how the AAC games should be delivered. Having tried (as others) to watch the MWC Network, I say stick with CBSSN or ESPN (or even Fox); at least until streaming is feasible.
 
still a worthless thread about politics - geez people can we agree to disagree about the value of diversity and the value of a stupid, clueless tweeting president (oops) - unless the focus is how the AAC games should be delivered. Having tried (as others) to watch the MWC Network, I say stick with CBSSN or ESPN (or even Fox); at least until streaming is feasible.
Streaming on a strong viable platform is feasible. If Aresco were to be able to strike some deal with Netflix or Amazon or HULU and was the first to do so, that would be an interesting prospect. Those seem to be pretty stable entities. Enough so that a lot of people who have cut the cord and don't have the ESPN/FS1 packages still have those because they can customize their content. MLB streamed a Red Sox game on twitter the other day...it was great. The NFL life streamed their Thursday night games on Twitter. Amazon or Netflix could do the same. It will be interesting because I think this is the direction we're headed and mostly because ESPN found the breaking point in rights fees.
 
Streaming on a strong viable platform is feasible. If Aresco were to be able to strike some deal with Netflix or Amazon or HULU and was the first to do so, that would be an interesting prospect. Those seem to be pretty stable entities. Enough so that a lot of people who have cut the cord and don't have the ESPN/FS1 packages still have those because they can customize their content. MLB streamed a Red Sox game on twitter the other day...it was great. The NFL life streamed their Thursday night games on Twitter. Amazon or Netflix could do the same. It will be interesting because I think this is the direction we're headed and mostly because ESPN found the breaking point in rights fees.
I'd love the streaming option, as I have both Netflix and Amazon Prime. All I do is stream (and OTA antenna)...haven't had cable for about four years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmullinsTU and 4tu2
And how many MW games did you watch last year? How many were on at the bar? I watched none. An embarrassing amount of MAC games though since they were accessible.

That's death for leagues like ours.

ESPN is the worst but it's them or bust.

Plus my degenerate childless self loves Thursday and Friday night games and excuses for more beer.

In my older age, I don't watch any college football games at all unless it involves Tulsa. I might watch half of an OU or Arkansas game. My viewing habits weren't the point, darlin'. And I ain't gonna lie, I enjoy the occasional Thursday game for us only b/c I know I'm gonna get a :crap:-ton done around the house that particular Saturday. But that one crappy season in the Graham era where we maybe had one Saturday home game was inexcusable.

You maybe right with your "death for leagues like ours" but I've never cared about death b/c I have no control or say in the matter. ESPN/Fox/CBS aren't going to keep paying us. Why not explore streaming options?

lol at junkie watching all alone on her Po-Hi Wi-Fi. You weren't alone. You were posting amongst many friends on the greatest TU football game thread in recent memory.
 
Keep in mind that not all streaming options are equal. WatchESPN has always been available for me from the beginning of a game to the end (with very limited blackout), the production quality is always excellent. games are archived almost immediately after they finish and remain available for 30 days, and the streams are compatible with virtually every imaginable device.

Anyone who paid to watch the UALR game this year can attest how bad it can get.
 
Keep in mind that not all streaming options are equal. WatchESPN has always been available for me from the beginning of a game to the end (with very limited blackout), the production quality is always excellent. games are archived almost immediately after they finish and remain available for 30 days, and the streams are compatible with virtually every imaginable device.

Anyone who paid to watch the UALR game this year can attest how bad it can get.
But you have to have ESPN via a subscription based service (like Cox, DirectTV, etc.) in order to access the WatchESPN stuff. Same with FoxSportsGO. Yes, their streaming is of a good quality. That's why I keep saying Netflix and Amazon...the known streaming services with quality streams and bandwidth...not the crap that the TU/FresnoSt game was streamed on (which I ditched anyway because I was bad luck while watching). Either of those services being a content provider for the AAC would be a game changer IMO.
 
Anyone who paid to watch the UALR game this year can attest how bad it can get.

I don't know why any school (Yooler sized or larger) doesn't partner with http://www.mlbam.com/ --- They're no longer just MLB, they've spun off onto a separate company to focus solely on streaming, highlights, etc. via the internet.

If the American partnered with MLB Advanced Media they could have their own streaming service that is on par with Watch ESPN (assuming they could afford good commentators). I suspect the biggest hold-up there is how do you get the advertising dollars necessary to make it worthwhile for the schools?
 
But you have to have ESPN via a subscription based service (like Cox, DirectTV, etc.) in order to access the WatchESPN stuff. Same with FoxSportsGO. Yes, their streaming is of a good quality. That's why I keep saying Netflix and Amazon...the known streaming services with quality streams and bandwidth...not the crap that the TU/FresnoSt game was streamed on (which I ditched anyway because I was bad luck while watching). Either of those services being a content provider for the AAC would be a game changer IMO.
ESPN without cable/satellite.
 
I use my neighbors subscription to watch Espn/Fox streaming, and they use my router to get internet and my Netflix subscription. When a game is on CBSSN, I scream a little bit, and then tell them that on such and such date I am commandeering one of their tv's!

Would love get it through Netflix. If one was through Netflix,(Fox/Espn) and the other was through Amazon then it would make Amazon worth it to purchase Amazon. Like LEC, I don't watch much sports besides TU anymore. Bring on the easy access streaming!
 
What incentive will people have to get off their couches and go to the stadium if it becomes this readily accessible?

i.e. will it be affordable for the schools to provide the amenities to outweigh the benefits of watching literally elsewhere?
 
What incentive will people have to get off their couches and go to the stadium if it becomes this readily accessible?

i.e. will it be affordable for the schools to provide the amenities to outweigh the benefits of watching literally elsewhere?
It already is if you have any cable/satellite provider. All of our home games are on some ESPN platform and if not them, then it's on Fox Sports or CBS Sports. All of them have live streaming capabilities. I think every TU football game was on one of the major sports networks except for the Fresno game and they streamed it so we were able to see it that way. Moving the access to the games from a cable provider to a streaming provider will not change the couch potato mentality of Tulsa fans
 
Sling is okay...I actually think Playstation Vue (you don't have to have a Playstation) is the best bang for the buck in way of channels for the money. And I like the way PS Vue is setup, but when I did the free preview, local channels weren't available yet for Tulsa. The cloud DVR is awesome. I currently get my locals through OTA antenna, and I use a Tivo Roamio for guide, DVR, etc.

But still...those are streaming packages as an alternative to cable. If I could watch live streaming sports with my $11 per month Netfilx sub, then that would be crazy good. Or my Amazon Prime sub I already have.

Like others, I use my parents DirectTV account to watch the ESPN app when I need to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
I suspect the biggest hold-up there is how do you get the advertising dollars necessary to make it worthwhile for the schools?

You charge people for it.

I'm not sure why people think it'd just be some free thing in the Netflix or Hulu subscription they already pay for. :-/
 
And since I haven't said it in awhile, cbs sports is horrid. No they do not have competent streaming cabalities for our games.

I dread having games on that network since there are no alternate channels for the inevitable delays in the game before ours not ending on time and the online option never ever working.
 
If Netflix, Amazon, etc., adds live sports streaming, my guess is they'd make it an add-on feature to your subscription. It would be like adding the 5-channel sports package for an additional $7.99 to your satellite package or whatever.

For instance, Dish Network has the "Multi-Sport Pack", which is an additional 35 sports channels for $13.00. Direct TV's "Sports Pack" is 30 additional sports channels for $13.99.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT