Players training these days makes a tough job impossible officiating wise.

[Kblaze8855]

Yep once you pay for the rights the nba gets paid even if you don’t watch. It sounds weird but on the other hand…when ratings are high you think espn or tnt pays the nba more to air it? They don’t.

It’s how Dave Chapelle explained the Pay of stand-up comics. “ I’m like Evil Knievel. I get paid for the attempt. I never promised this shit would be good.”.

You don’t have to watch for them to get paid when the pay is for the right to say “Wehave live nba games” In an effort to secure subscribers.

You think Netflix cares what exactly you watch as long as you don’t cancel your subscription?

The things that get watched the most go viral, and Netflix uses that for advertisement. But the actual streams don’t add revenue to them.

It’s the same for most streamed content now. They only care about streams in the broadest terms. If you don’t cancel your subscription, they don’t care if you die. They’re using us to replace the old Pay TV model where everyone in America with cable had ESPN even if they hated sports. Everybody paid three dollars a month of the cable bill to ESPN even if you never turned on the channel because the people who do watch sports won’t pay for the service at all without ESPN.

now they go à la cart and come straight for your credit card number. And you’re way less likely to cancel 8 bucks a month than to get rid of a 159 dollar cable bill thus far. They know that eventually two or three of them will be sharing the entire country, and the last men standing will have live sports.

[elementally morale]

I think I get most of what you are saying except the idea that you have to have live sports on the menu even if only 10% of you viewership is interested 2 times a year and 2% of your viewership is a regular watcher.

In my mind it somehow translates to Donovan Mitchell's 350 million dollar deal on the idea the he is not watched at all but is possible being watched. In fact, it makes sense while being utter nonsense at the same time.

[Kblaze8855]

Sports fans are like single issue voters. They can agree with your whole platform, but if you’re pro or anti-abortion, they can’t vote for you for that reason alone. If somebody watches sports they have to have ESPN. And ESPN takes that specialization to the next step by making sure they have all the major sports, so no matter what sport you are after you have to have ESPN so all the platforms have to have espn.

Espn pays all the sports leagues whatever they demand because even larger entities like Apple and Amazon will pay them back plus the extra ESPN demands to make it one succinct package. It’s all about building passive monthly dependable subscription based revenue. They throw 40 things at the wall and don’t care which of the 40 is the reason you don’t cancel. Just keep that auto pay processing.

[Kblaze8855]

Oh, and the next step is gambling. We are talking a trillion industry with all of these involved entities lobbying Local and federal lawmakers to legalize online sports betting on the various apps. That happens? You get legal sports betting coast to coast? The revenue is going to jump even higher. Last I read both the NFL and NBA were angling to get one percent of all the bets placed on their leagues through licensed legal casinos.

illegal sports betting is almost $2 trillion a year. How much you think the NBA and NFL can carve off by backing DraftKings and companies like that fighting to make it legal?

They are just getting started big picture wise. The games at that point will just have to be played. Active viewers will matter even less.

[elementally morale]

They throw 40 things at the wall and don’t care which of the 40 is the reason you don’t cancel. Just keep that auto pay processing.

The whole idea is based upon the assumption that enough viewers watch at least one sport regularly to care enough if you have sport or not. On the other hand, we started off with the premise that new viewers don't watch sports just highlights. But okay, I imagine there are tons of people who feel like: it has to be there even if I don't watch it because some day I may.

But why does it not factor in the business model what is being watched more? Per your Netflix example: if you have shows noone cares about (or very few people like) then in the end you are likely to lose subscribers. So I imagined they want to know which show was actually streamed and which one wasn't. Why does it not matter?

[Xiao Yao You]

The whole idea is based upon the assumption that enough viewers watch at least one sport regularly to care enough if you have sport or not. On the other hand, we started off with the premise that new viewers don't watch sports just highlights. But okay, I imagine there are tons of people who feel like: it has to be there even if I don't watch it because some day I may.

But why does it not factor in the business model what is being watched more? Per your Netflix example: if you have shows noone cares about (or very few people like) then in the end you are likely to lose subscribers. So I imagined they want to know which show was actually streamed and which one wasn't. Why does it not matter?

An NFL playoff game is being shown only on Peacock so you have to subscribe to Peacock if you want to watch the game.

[1987_Lakers]

An NFL playoff game is being shown only on Peacock so you have to subscribe to Peacock if you want to watch the game.

https://reddit1.nflbite.com/

Wrong

[Xiao Yao You]

https://reddit1.nflbite.com/

Wrong

legally

[Kblaze8855]

The whole idea is based upon the assumption that enough viewers watch at least one sport regularly to care enough if you have sport or not. On the other hand, we started off with the premise that new viewers don't watch sports just highlights. But okay, I imagine there are tons of people who feel like: it has to be there even if I don't watch it because some day I may.

But why does it not factor in the business model what is being watched more? Per your Netflix example: if you have shows noone cares about (or very few people like) then in the end you are likely to lose subscribers. So I imagined they want to know which show was actually streamed and which one wasn't. Why does it not matter?

they track it to decide what is worth investing in production wise and what is worth advertising and propping up as a reason to continue the service. But I promise you nobody at Netflix cares if viewership across the board dropped if it weren’t reflected in subscriber losses.

they’ll happily take more people watching less.

You’d be surprised how often that results in more profit.

It’s all about maximizing what you get from each user. ESPN rating have never been lower but an internal report showed they generated more profit than all of Disney’s entertainment sector combined.

Cord cutting has hurt the subscriber base but going direct to consumer lets them charge more per consumer. The people doing business with them directly and paying for ESPN plus or the Disney bundle including ESPN plus help make up for the fact they are in less homes on cable TV. Plus the back end of all sports media deals is where the network eats. It always looks like a bad deal for the network upfront but sports is one of the few things always growing. ESPN is pretty much putting the ACC in the grave. Signed a gigantic deal for like 15 or 20 years and a in few years realized ESPN severely underpaid them.

but ESPN keeps them at that low rate for as long as they choose. Now as possible, ESPN may opt out early, but it’s up to them.

ESPN gets a lot of criticism and much of it justified but America’s obsession with sports make them one of the only safe bets.

[Kblaze8855]

https://reddit1.nflbite.com/

Wrong

i’ve been streaming for 20 years. I’ve had paid streaming services on android boxes, with 5 to 8000 channels. And even with those one thing is certain…..

You don’t risk using an illegal stream to watch a big sporting event. Especially if you’re going to have people over. I would never rely on such a thing for the NFL playoffs. I can always find a stream, but every site along those lines is going to go down eventually. My old bookmarks are 10 streaming sites that have been seized or otherwise gone away.

Not risking it for anything I actually care about seeing. Especially not when my house has traditionally been where people show up to watch sports.

[Xiao Yao You]

they track it to decide what is worth investing in production wise and what is worth advertising and propping up as a reason to continue the service. But I promise you nobody at Netflix cares if viewership across the board dropped if it weren’t reflected in subscriber losses.

they’ll happily take more people watching less.

You’d be surprised how often that results in more profit.

It’s all about maximizing what you get from each user. ESPN rating have never been lower but an internal report showed they generated more profit than all of Disney’s entertainment sector combined.

Cord cutting has hurt the subscriber base but going direct to consumer lets them charge more per consumer. The people doing business with them directly and paying for ESPN plus or the Disney bundle including ESPN plus help make up for the fact they are in less homes on cable TV. Plus the back end of all sports media deals is where the network eats. It always looks like a bad deal for the network upfront but sports is one of the few things always growing. ESPN is pretty much putting the ACC in the grave. Signed a gigantic deal for like 15 or 20 years and a in few years realized ESPN severely underpaid them.

but ESPN keeps them at that low rate for as long as they choose. Now as possible, ESPN may opt out early, but it’s up to them.

ESPN gets a lot of criticism and much of it justified but America’s obsession with sports make them one of the only safe bets.

ESPN is trying to force you to subscribe to ESPN +. A lot of stuff I used to watch is now on there. **** em!

[elementally morale]

Let's imagine the state of affairs 10 years from now. Will the games still be played? Is it necessary to have the actual games?

[elementally morale]

ESPN is trying to force you to subscribe to ESPN +. A lot of stuff I used to watch is now on there. **** em!

And what replaced them?

[Kblaze8855]

Don’t have Highlights to post if the games aren’t played. But I don’t know how they get back the kids. the people they are after to continue leading sports online just don’t watch TV the way fans used to watch TV. It might come down to gambling. How much money do you think is bet on NBA games yearly? That’s probably hidden bonanza they’re all waiting to cash in.

[Kblaze8855]

ESPN is trying to force you to subscribe to ESPN +. A lot of stuff I used to watch is now on there. **** em!

it’s in my Disney+. Bundle, along with Hulu. I don’t even think about it. All my subscriptions are spread across so many different accounts and credit cards that I barely use just to keep them active. I never see them all at once. I don’t even know where my Sirius radio or Spotify payments come from.

I’m also not entirely sure where my league pass is paid. I think it’s one of the things that appears on one of my credit cards as an Amazon prime subscription.

This is the way they want it. Chip away at you. Death by a thousand cuts you don’t notice. And it works on me. I have every service I’m aware of. But I have cable on top of it.

hundreds of channels in four rooms and a sunroom and I’m not sure any of those TVs has been on the cable box in months. I’ll end up streaming something on the related service on the TV when the same game is on cable somewhere.

The sunroom fire stick had my cable services app on it but last time I tried to use it there was a message saying it was added to Amazon without permission and is now deactivated. Probably some corporate beef.