Future of college sports television?

**00clone** · 08-23-2011, 10:44 AM

Crazy thought here, but I was looking at some of the internet TV devices (Roku, Boxee, AppleTV, etc.), and noticed a few things.

MLB.TV: $35 a year, looks like you can watch any game about anywhere (other than maybe if it's broadcast in your area?).
BYU: Roku has a BYU channel. Admittedly, this is probably about half (or more) as much about an outlet for Mormonism as it is about BYU athletics.
I think it was Kansas (or KSU) and Missouri both announced what sounded like supercharged versions of CloneZone last week.
I heard LHN was having trouble getting onto cable providers, obviously this could change like the Big10 network.
Other than Notre Dame and NBC, I can't think of any other school that has a traditional media outlet specifically geared to one school.

Could this be the future of college sports programming, or even all programming? I'd love to see an ISU channel where I could get all the games. In reality, that's a ways off, with the current contracts, but I was just thinking about it.

I'm far from an expert on these devices, so maybe it's a flash in the pan, but does anyone else have any thoughts or experiences on whether this might be the way of the future? I also realize it may not be reliant on the devices themselves, just thinking of them as a bridge between the "cable box culture" and completely net-based programming.

Mods: I posted this in Football because the money of football and TV is throwing college sports into a tizzy these days, but if overall it should be in general college sports, feel free to move.

**BigDISU1** · 08-23-2011, 11:25 AM

I think À la carte cable television is the future, whether it is net based or cable box based. The beginnings of the technology are already in place. Somebody will come up with a way to make it profitable and work.

I dont follow the realignment info very closely, but I always wonder whats going to happen to sports channel revenues (like the big 10 network) in the future when it no longer can be forced upon subscribers and people can choose what they want. I would drop big 10 network in a heartbeat if I could choose my channels, and my guess is about 50-60% or more would do the same.

I am sure brighter people then me have a solution to this, but with all the potential $$ from realignment and television sets, its something i have wondered about.

**cybsball20** · 08-23-2011, 11:27 AM

MLB.TV is AMAZING... all the games, HD quality and you can stream to your phone... No wonder they have sold almost 7 million subscriptions.

**IcSyU** · 08-23-2011, 11:28 AM

MLB.tv is $120 a year IIRC...$35 now probably gives you the rest of the season.

**cybsball20** · 08-23-2011, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by IcSyU

MLB.tv is $120 a year IIRC...$35 now probably gives you the rest of the season.

Yeah, I think it's like $19.99 a month, then another $20 for the app.

**clintr** · 08-23-2011, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by cybsball20

MLB.TV is AMAZING... all the games, HD quality and you can stream to your phone... No wonder they have sold almost 7 million subscriptions.

My understanding is that cubs, cardinals and half another dozen teams you can't view because we are in "their market". Super awesome $35 fee or no? You decide.

**00clone** · 08-23-2011, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by IcSyU

MLB.tv is $120 a year IIRC...$35 now probably gives you the rest of the season.

makes sense, just checked it quickly for the post. Was thinking something must be off.

**cybsball20** · 08-23-2011, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by clintr

My understanding is that cubs, cardinals and half another dozen teams you can't view because we are in "their market". Super awesome $35 fee or no? You decide.

Cubs, Cards, Twins, Royals, White Sox, and Brewers... It's still not bad considering alot of these are on local TV anyways... I like to watch a West Coast game at night and watch some day games too so it's great for me.

**IcSyU** · 08-23-2011, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by clintr

My understanding is that cubs, cardinals and half another dozen teams you can't view because we are in "their market". Super awesome $35 fee or no? You decide.

Brewers
Cubs
White Sox
Cardinals
Royals
Twins

As a Yankee fan, it works out great for me. The majority of their games aren't affected by the blackout restrictions, and I went to the ones in KC and Chicago so I'm paying $120 for about 140 games. I can pick up the others via CSN, WGN, FSN, etc. so it isn't a big deal.

**clintr** · 08-23-2011, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by cybsball20

Cubs, Cards, Twins, Royals, White Sox, and Brewers... It's still not bad considering alot of these are on local cable TV anyways... I like to watch a West Coast game at night and watch some day games too so it's great for me.

Fixed it.

**Rogue52** · 08-23-2011, 12:06 PM

A la carte programming will only come around if the product is directly provided by the entity producing it - like MLBtv.

**CtownCyclone** · 08-23-2011, 12:25 PM

I actually thought about getting MLB.TV so I could stream to my phone at work. Then I realized that the Cubs were terrible and would likely push me to the brink of suicide if I had to watch it all season.

**3GenClone** · 08-23-2011, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by 00clone

Crazy thought here, but I was looking at some of the internet TV devices (Roku, Boxee, AppleTV, etc.), and noticed a few things.

MLB.TV: $35 a year, looks like you can watch any game about anywhere (other than maybe if it's broadcast in your area?).
BYU: Roku has a BYU channel. Admittedly, this is probably about half (or more) as much about an outlet for Mormonism as it is about BYU athletics.
I think it was Kansas (or KSU) and Missouri both announced what sounded like supercharged versions of CloneZone last week.
I heard LHN was having trouble getting onto cable providers, obviously this could change like the Big10 network.
Other than Notre Dame and NBC, I can't think of any other school that has a traditional media outlet specifically geared to one school.

Could this be the future of college sports programming, or even all programming? I'd love to see an ISU channel where I could get all the games. In reality, that's a ways off, with the current contracts, but I was just thinking about it.

I'm far from an expert on these devices, so maybe it's a flash in the pan, but does anyone else have any thoughts or experiences on whether this might be the way of the future? I also realize it may not be reliant on the devices themselves, just thinking of them as a bridge between the "cable box culture" and completely net-based programming.

Mods: I posted this in Football because the money of football and TV is throwing college sports into a tizzy these days, but if overall it should be in general college sports, feel free to move.

Absolutely. Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Warner Bros. are already delivering IP-based cable service. Microsoft has announced at this years E3 Conference that they will be broadcasting live TV through the XBox console as early as this Fall (no introductory date has been set). Services like ESPN3 give internet subscribers the ability to watch ESPN content without a cable TV subscription and they already have a solid line-up of college football games scheduled for broadcast this season. Verizon, Warner Bros., and few other cable companies are also allowing internet customers to stream ESPN live on their PCs. Also, the Big 10 network will be introducing an app that will allow iPad/PC users to stream the Big 10 Net, as long as those users are already subscribers (similar to HBO-Go).

This is definitely the future of sports broadcasting as well as every other form of media. IP-based cable TV service is already implemented in countries like Japan and the UK and is slowly being introduced in major US markets. If it wasn't for the cable companies having a stranglehold in the US government, we would have seen this introduced years ago.

**ianoconnor** · 08-23-2011, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by cybsball20

Cubs, Cards, Twins, Royals, White Sox, and Brewers... It's still not bad considering alot of these are on local TV anyways... I like to watch a West Coast game at night and watch some day games too so it's great for me.

Which for me as a Reds fan absolutely sucks. I can't watch games against 3 out of the 5 other teams in the division.

I choose to just do the MLB Radio subscription and listen to games instead. It's like $20/year.

**cybsball20** · 08-23-2011, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by ianoconnor

Which for me as a Reds fan absolutely sucks. I can't watch games against 3 out of the 5 other teams in the division.

I choose to just do the MLB Radio subscription and listen to games instead. It's like $20/year.

I'm in the same boat with the Pirates, but I can watch the Cards and most Cubs games on Cable, then only have the Brewers games that I have to settle for the radio broadcasts and those have been a mess anyways...