[dabigv13]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...=hp_t14_a0

Just read an interesting article on CNNSI about the changing relationship between television and college football since the 1980s. Nothing really new or groundbreaking, but a good deal of it is dedicated to Larry Scott and the Pac-12. It seems ludicrous today, but back in 1984, the thought was that college football needed to broadcast LESS games to protect the value of their product.

Personally the most intriguing question is the one the article ends with- what happens when the technology is such that a streaming internet feed to your bigscreen plasma is on par with the quality of cable or satellite. I'm one of many people who only pay the ridiculous price for cable TV just because of college football. Once the Pac-12 can stream me games in high quality, what use do I have for Time Warner, or for that matter ESPN or CBS or Fox sports, etc.

It won't be long until that happens (of course the irony is that my shitty Time Warner Internet service might be what prevents it, for me personally), and at that point I think the ripple effects for the whole television industry will be pretty great.

[dabigv13]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/wr...=hp_t14_a0

Just read an interesting article on CNNSI about the changing relationship between television and college football since the 1980s. Nothing really new or groundbreaking, but a good deal of it is dedicated to Larry Scott and the Pac-12. It seems ludicrous today, but back in 1984, the thought was that college football needed to broadcast LESS games to protect the value of their product.

Personally the most intriguing question is the one the article ends with- what happens when the technology is such that a streaming internet feed to your bigscreen plasma is on par with the quality of cable or satellite. I'm one of many people who only pay the ridiculous price for cable TV just because of college football. Once the Pac-12 can stream me games in high quality, what use do I have for Time Warner, or for that matter ESPN or CBS or Fox sports, etc.

It won't be long until that happens (of course the irony is that my shitty Time Warner Internet service might be what prevents it, for me personally), and at that point I think the ripple effects for the whole television industry will be pretty great.

[oman]

I rarely think of such things.  Five years after a practical use is made for some technology, I notice it, and say, oh, that's clever.

I had actually thought that it would be kind of a two tier deal -- that somehow the tv networks would figure out how to nab all of the big games and the Pac12 and Longhorn networks of the world would all be internet pay services by this point in time.

[oman]

I rarely think of such things.  Five years after a practical use is made for some technology, I notice it, and say, oh, that's clever.

I had actually thought that it would be kind of a two tier deal -- that somehow the tv networks would figure out how to nab all of the big games and the Pac12 and Longhorn networks of the world would all be internet pay services by this point in time.

[Hank 91]

It'll definitely be interesting to see how all this plays out. A few weeks ago my wife asked me if we should just ditch DirecTV (and the $160/mo. bill) now that we can watch movies and television series streamed to our television via Hulu+, Amazon Prime, or AppleTV. My answer was simple -- No. Once these football conferences and professional sports figure out how to make money by streaming, cable and satellite television will shrivel up and die.

[Hank 91]

It'll definitely be interesting to see how all this plays out. A few weeks ago my wife asked me if we should just ditch DirecTV (and the $160/mo. bill) now that we can watch movies and television series streamed to our television via Hulu+, Amazon Prime, or AppleTV. My answer was simple -- No. Once these football conferences and professional sports figure out how to make money by streaming, cable and satellite television will shrivel up and die.

[Redrum]

Just as Direct TV costs more, particularly considering the the cost of separate internet connectivity must be added on to live in this a-go-go new world,  so the world of the future will have subscription rates to watch what you're really interested in,  plus the internet cable charges.  All that access will just run ahead of today's prices.  Right now, in my neck of the woods,  we seem to be in the sweet spot.  Lighter on Pac-12 coverage than I'd like,  but  college football from 9 a.m. to midnight on Saturdays.  Still, got to watch Stanford 9 or 10 times last year, IIRC two of those were on ESPNU streaming. 

Not looking forward to the Pac-12 subscription fee as access through the present channels dries up.  Oh,  BTW.  Did I mention I HATE Comcast?  Just thought I'd bring that up.

[Redrum]

Just as Direct TV costs more, particularly considering the the cost of separate internet connectivity must be added on to live in this a-go-go new world,  so the world of the future will have subscription rates to watch what you're really interested in,  plus the internet cable charges.  All that access will just run ahead of today's prices.  Right now, in my neck of the woods,  we seem to be in the sweet spot.  Lighter on Pac-12 coverage than I'd like,  but  college football from 9 a.m. to midnight on Saturdays.  Still, got to watch Stanford 9 or 10 times last year, IIRC two of those were on ESPNU streaming. 

Not looking forward to the Pac-12 subscription fee as access through the present channels dries up.  Oh,  BTW.  Did I mention I HATE Comcast?  Just thought I'd bring that up.

[dabigv13]

I disagree. My cable and internet bill is about 140$ a month right now, and that doesn't even include all the possible sports packages- I don't have access to the FSN network even if I wanted to pay for it because TWC in NYC doesn't offer it. Now, ESPN is the most expensive channel for cable providers, and it is around 5$ a subscriber. The next most expensive channels are in the 1$ range. Even assuming a rather hefty markup in a direct to consumer model, ESPN, or the PAC-12, or Stanford could mark up that cost by double, and I'd still be paying 20 bucks a month and getting all of the Stanford sports I actually want, losing out on the home shopping network, or whatever other BS channels I never ever watch.

It seems to me that a lot of cable channels have been drinking at the teat of college football for some time now...so sorry if you're a big fan of Ghost Whisperer, but I think in the future the production values of your show may be on the decline.

[dabigv13]

I disagree. My cable and internet bill is about 140$ a month right now, and that doesn't even include all the possible sports packages- I don't have access to the FSN network even if I wanted to pay for it because TWC in NYC doesn't offer it. Now, ESPN is the most expensive channel for cable providers, and it is around 5$ a subscriber. The next most expensive channels are in the 1$ range. Even assuming a rather hefty markup in a direct to consumer model, ESPN, or the PAC-12, or Stanford could mark up that cost by double, and I'd still be paying 20 bucks a month and getting all of the Stanford sports I actually want, losing out on the home shopping network, or whatever other BS channels I never ever watch.

It seems to me that a lot of cable channels have been drinking at the teat of college football for some time now...so sorry if you're a big fan of Ghost Whisperer, but I think in the future the production values of your show may be on the decline.