SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2019-20 Boston Celtics Season
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 20, 2019 20:12:14 GMT -5
Imagine how much it would cost if all the people who don't care about it stopped paying for it. They're heavily subsidizing the people who do want to watch it. I've warned about the cable money bubble popping in sports. It just seems to be a matter of time. Umm it has basically already happened. 60% of the US population has already ditched cable. I don't know what bubble you are waiting for. Disney owning ESPN and making them a package deal kinda protects ESPN. Cable is basically dead, but people still watch a lot of TV and are more than willing to pay for it. Really the only thing still propping up cable is their internet. In Western Mass it's still the best internet available to most people. This isn’t true. You’re getting this from a survey. Surveys need to be closely looked at. Here’s part of the editors note for that survey. If anything this survey seems to indicate that Jim is right there’s a bubble burst on its way as the older generations die off. www.westmonroepartners.com/Insights/Newsletters/Cord-Cutting-StatisticsEditor’s Note: When we set out to explore the phenomenon of cord cutting in America, we braced ourselves for dramatic numbers. The numbers returned from our survey of 5,000 Americans were downright unbelievable though—that is, if you read them as nationally representative. They are not. No doubt, if 59 percent of our country’s consumers had already cut cable, traditional cable companies would be decimated and out of business. An interpretation of this survey must begin with the caveat that the survey’s respondents likely skew younger and more budget-conscious than the average American. Please read the results as indicative of trends in that consumer demographic, and we’ll continue to study this fast-evolving subject.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 20, 2019 20:13:07 GMT -5
Romeo got some good run in the first quarter. Looked good. His drive to the hoop was pretty sweet. Gives me hope he’s not going to be a bust.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 20, 2019 21:24:06 GMT -5
Romeo got some good run in the first quarter. Looked good. His drive to the hoop was pretty sweet. Gives me hope he’s not going to be a bust. Agreed, I need to see more of Romeo. He still looks far too nervous, but I would like to see what he can do with more minutes. Speaking of rookies, second game in a row where Grant Williams has looked mighty decent on offense. He's shooting with confidence, attacking more, getting the ball more. This could be huge. Anyway, this game is a thorough dicking lol. 20 points blowout with Kemba Walker scoring a single point, what a night.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 20, 2019 22:49:06 GMT -5
I'm going on a slight rant here, but it's absolutely incredible how terrible of a job the 6ers FO has done over the past 3 seasons. You get two supremely talented players in Simmons and Embiid and it should immediately set you on championship course. But then it begins. You fumble the top pick overall in the draft, you surround them with guys that can't shoot, trade solid assets for ball hog and poor fit Jimmy Butler that bails on you after the season anyway, you also trade for another bad fit in Tobias Harris AND resign him anyway because being stupid is a full time job, you overpay for Al Horford who is (love you Al, but I've been saying that for years so I can't stop now) a small baller and also a TERRIBLE FIT next to Embiid and you refuse to be either a fastbreak team to properly use Simmons and you don't even try to space the floor so Embiid can bang inside. Heck, you let Embiid take as many outside shots as he wants. Now the 6ers can't score against a zone because they have no shooters and Brett Brown is a moron.
Just unbelievable. As a basketball lover, it just makes me angry.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 21, 2019 1:21:38 GMT -5
Umm it has basically already happened. 60% of the US population has already ditched cable. I don't know what bubble you are waiting for. Disney owning ESPN and making them a package deal kinda protects ESPN. Cable is basically dead, but people still watch a lot of TV and are more than willing to pay for it. Really the only thing still propping up cable is their internet. In Western Mass it's still the best internet available to most people. This isn’t true. You’re getting this from a survey. Surveys need to be closely looked at. Here’s part of the editors note for that survey. If anything this survey seems to indicate that Jim is right there’s a bubble burst on its way as the older generations die off. www.westmonroepartners.com/Insights/Newsletters/Cord-Cutting-StatisticsEditor’s Note: When we set out to explore the phenomenon of cord cutting in America, we braced ourselves for dramatic numbers. The numbers returned from our survey of 5,000 Americans were downright unbelievable though—that is, if you read them as nationally representative. They are not. No doubt, if 59 percent of our country’s consumers had already cut cable, traditional cable companies would be decimated and out of business. An interpretation of this survey must begin with the caveat that the survey’s respondents likely skew younger and more budget-conscious than the average American. Please read the results as indicative of trends in that consumer demographic, and we’ll continue to study this fast-evolving subject. I didn't look at that article, but the article I did used that report, but with no editor's note. The numbers aren't crazy though as just over half of US households currently have cable. Since 2014 the peak of cable TV they are down about 35% having lost about 35 million customers. They lost over 2 million just last quarter and cable TV will be radically different likely within years. So there's certainly a bubble in cable TV. I just don't see some huge sports money bubble. Let's say cable dies tomorrow, those people aren't going to stop paying for live sports. They will just switch to live internet TV or the Disney/ESPN online subscription stuff like that. For there to be some huge sports money bubble there would need to be a huge shift in the amount of people willing to pay for live sports, not just the collapse of cable TV. Cable TV companies don't prop up sports, the stations do and there is now a bunch of ways they make money. It's brilliant to package Disney with ESPN because you attract the households with kids and the ones that want sports. I cut the cord, have a $50 TV antenna that gives me 35 channels, including CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, PBS and The CW in full HD. I still have internet TV mainly for sports though.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 21, 2019 5:22:26 GMT -5
This isn’t true. You’re getting this from a survey. Surveys need to be closely looked at. Here’s part of the editors note for that survey. If anything this survey seems to indicate that Jim is right there’s a bubble burst on its way as the older generations die off. www.westmonroepartners.com/Insights/Newsletters/Cord-Cutting-StatisticsEditor’s Note: When we set out to explore the phenomenon of cord cutting in America, we braced ourselves for dramatic numbers. The numbers returned from our survey of 5,000 Americans were downright unbelievable though—that is, if you read them as nationally representative. They are not. No doubt, if 59 percent of our country’s consumers had already cut cable, traditional cable companies would be decimated and out of business. An interpretation of this survey must begin with the caveat that the survey’s respondents likely skew younger and more budget-conscious than the average American. Please read the results as indicative of trends in that consumer demographic, and we’ll continue to study this fast-evolving subject. I didn't look at that article, but the article I did used that report, but with no editor's note. The numbers aren't crazy though as just over half of US households currently have cable. Since 2014 the peak of cable TV they are down about 35% having lost about 35 million customers. They lost over 2 million just last quarter and cable TV will be radically different likely within years. So there's certainly a bubble in cable TV. I just don't see some huge sports money bubble. Let's say cable dies tomorrow, those people aren't going to stop paying for live sports. They will just switch to live internet TV or the Disney/ESPN online subscription stuff like that. For there to be some huge sports money bubble there would need to be a huge shift in the amount of people willing to pay for live sports, not just the collapse of cable TV. Cable TV companies don't prop up sports, the stations do and there is now a bunch of ways they make money. It's brilliant to package Disney with ESPN because you attract the households with kids and the ones that want sports. I cut the cord, have a $50 TV antenna that gives me 35 channels, including CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, PBS and The CW in full HD. I still have internet TV mainly for sports though. Well, what percentage of people who have cut the cord are paying for streaming services that include ESPN? I have PS Vue and will be switching to Youtube TV soon. People do have the option to go with a service like Philio which costs less than half of all the others because it doesn't include sports.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 21, 2019 6:52:32 GMT -5
I'm going on a slight rant here, but it's absolutely incredible how terrible of a job the 6ers FO has done over the past 3 seasons. You get two supremely talented players in Simmons and Embiid and it should immediately set you on championship course. But then it begins. You fumble the top pick overall in the draft, you surround them with guys that can't shoot, trade solid assets for ball hog and poor fit Jimmy Butler that bails on you after the season anyway, you also trade for another bad fit in Tobias Harris AND resign him anyway because being stupid is a full time job, you overpay for Al Horford who is (love you Al, but I've been saying that for years so I can't stop now) a small baller and also a TERRIBLE FIT next to Embiid and you refuse to be either a fastbreak team to properly use Simmons and you don't even try to space the floor so Embiid can bang inside. Heck, you let Embiid take as many outside shots as he wants. Now the 6ers can't score against a zone because they have no shooters and Brett Brown is a moron. Just unbelievable. As a basketball lover, it just makes me angry. I agree with a lot of this but not all of it. I don’t think the Butler trade was bad. He wasn’t a great fit because he doesn’t shoot threes that well but he was a great fit from a standpoint of how he played the game the right way and valued hard work and defense. It’s unfortunate for them he didn’t want to be there and take a leadership role because I feel like Embiid and Simmonds could have benefited greatly by learning from him. I also feel like Al is a great fit next to Embiid. I guess I could be way off on this and you are right Al should be a small ball 5 in today’s NBA and not a 4 but Al is good and his game fits with anyone’s in my opinion. Plus, he doesn’t need a usage rate to be highly effective. That missed pick was huge. Can you imagine that team with Tatum? How long they would be... actually, you can because Harris wouldn’t be there... speaking of, that Harris trade was tough. It was a bad fit and Shamut is the type of player they really need right now. At the end of the day though the Sixers come down to Embiid. Shaq and Barkley are right when they call him out. That guy should dominate every night but he doesn’t and that’s 100% a motor/desire thing for him. He might just go beast mode thru the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 21, 2019 8:44:52 GMT -5
Embiid has that island thing going on, it is a real laid back culture so maintaining a level of intensity that is required to dominate is hard for him. KG he is not.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Dec 21, 2019 15:28:58 GMT -5
This is awesome. Brad is like a rockstar here.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 21, 2019 15:57:29 GMT -5
I didn't look at that article, but the article I did used that report, but with no editor's note. The numbers aren't crazy though as just over half of US households currently have cable. Since 2014 the peak of cable TV they are down about 35% having lost about 35 million customers. They lost over 2 million just last quarter and cable TV will be radically different likely within years. So there's certainly a bubble in cable TV. I just don't see some huge sports money bubble. Let's say cable dies tomorrow, those people aren't going to stop paying for live sports. They will just switch to live internet TV or the Disney/ESPN online subscription stuff like that. For there to be some huge sports money bubble there would need to be a huge shift in the amount of people willing to pay for live sports, not just the collapse of cable TV. Cable TV companies don't prop up sports, the stations do and there is now a bunch of ways they make money. It's brilliant to package Disney with ESPN because you attract the households with kids and the ones that want sports. I cut the cord, have a $50 TV antenna that gives me 35 channels, including CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, PBS and The CW in full HD. I still have internet TV mainly for sports though. Well, what percentage of people who have cut the cord are paying for streaming services that include ESPN? I have PS Vue and will be switching to Youtube TV soon. People do have the option to go with a service like Philio which costs less than half of all the others because it doesn't include sports. I never even heard of Philio and I see why. Who would ever pay $20 for those Channels? Go compare to Sling for $25 a month, that has a ton of sport channels and all the popular channels like TNT, USA, TBS. Unless you really like MTV and want four MTV channels or four Nickelodeon channels lol. I count four channels I'd actually watch, it's mostly filler channels that no one likes, all those high channels on Dish. You kinda miss the point, even if you don't pay for TV which is fairly rare and have an Antenna to watch your locals you are supporting sports. CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox and The CW all show live sports. Even if you don't pay, they get tons of add revenue by you watching it. Tracking cable is rather easy as like six companies do 95% of the business and they all report their numbers. There are a million internet TV companies and almost every channel has its own streaming service now. I'm not spending that type of time and they all don't report numbers. Like YouTube TV doesn't report numbers. Yet a quick glance and it's millions and millions. ESPN plus is already over 3.5 million in no time for example. Hulo live TV and Sling already have over 5 million. Direct TV and Dish TV on demand internet TV have over 3 million.
How many people do you know who don't like sports and won't pay for them? I know four people and three of them still pay for them for when people come over. Heck my brother and uncle are as anti sports as they come and both pay extra for the Golf Chanel for my father who loves Golf. I litterally know one person out of all my family and friends, along with all my wife's that doesn't have channels with live sports, he only has Netflix.
I get what you're saying, I just don't think it matches up with reality currently. People love sports and Sports isn't just ESPN. Like I was amazed that China watches so much NBA that they effect 10 to 20% of the NBA revenue. ESPN has what one NFL game a week. The Chinese blackout is why NBA ratings are down. Sports ratings is really the stat to watch, if you have years and years of decline that will effect sports money, not cable TV. They make most of their money on Adds tied to ratings. Not by people getting channels they don't watch.
My father switched to YouTube TV and loves it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 21, 2019 16:39:53 GMT -5
ESPN costs $9 a month for any service that carries it. It would cost $25 or so if the people who don't watch it didn't have it.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 21, 2019 20:02:33 GMT -5
ESPN costs $9 a month for any service that carries it. It would cost $25 or so if the people who don't watch it didn't have it. You base this off of what exactly?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2019 13:34:45 GMT -5
ESPN costs $9 a month for any service that carries it. It would cost $25 or so if the people who don't watch it didn't have it. You base this off of what exactly? This is an older article but it's pretty relevant. money.com/cancel-espn-cable-channel/If you removed 56% of ESPNs revenues, they could either make up for it by raising the prices accordingly by gouging the people who would pay for it no matter how much it costs or they could cut billions of NBA money. And this one from 2017 states that ESPN charges $9.06 per month for their channels. I'm sure it's more now: www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3Are You Willing To Pay $36 Per Month For ESPN?Napkin math says if you removed 56% of subscribers and wanted the same revenues, the $9.06 would have to rise to $20.59. Since that would cut subscribers even more, you're easily approaching $25 a month. Or NBA/NFL/MLB money disappears from ESPN anyway. But then the competition would also be paying less and the leagues would be getting less.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 22, 2019 17:14:18 GMT -5
I think we already learned a valuable lesson with the survey RJP posted. You can't poll individual people and then act like that determines a household and cable/TV is a household thing. The household matters, the kids matter and you have around three people per household on average.
Growing up I lived with my mom and brother, they both don't care about sports and would answer yes to that survey. Yet there was no way when I was younger my mom was going to cancel it, it would have been WW3 and turned back on the next day. So those numbers even if legit, don't translate to household numbers.
Nevermind don't you have to ask the question why ESPN can charge more and every cable provider pays it?
Recently cable providers are ditching channels like crazy over cost. Dish canceled NBC sports, one of the reasons I left and recently ditched a major channel in Fox. Yet I haven't seen any of them ditch ESPN. It's like the survey said, the #1 reason people currently give for keeping cable is live sports. Cable providers have the numbers of what people watch and if they could cut ESPN to keep costs lower without a mass exit of customers they would do it.
In 2016 44 of the top 50 most watched US TV broadcasts were sports. Most TV money is made through Adds and sports are by far and away the top events year after year. ESPN could fold tomorrow and it's only going to be a small blimp in sports revenue as other stations will sign contracts to fill the void. Subscription fees are a rather tiny amount of ESPNs revenue, adds is where they make the real money, which means tons of people are watching. They paid over 7 billion in sports fees in 2016, even if they had a 100 million subscribers which they didn't, that would still be only about a billion dollars. Viewers matter much more than fees. They don't charge the highest because they have to, it's because they can do it and people pay.
Only way the Sports TV money blows up is if people stop watching sports. It's not cable or ESPN. As long as TV stations can make almost 1.5 billion running adds during the Superbowl, sports will get a ton of TV money.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2019 18:02:29 GMT -5
Any streaming service or cable that ditches ESPN will also be ditching ABC and Disney, so that's not an option. Antennas aren't an option in so many places, especially newer areas where everything is an apartment complex or townhouse neighborhood which has other buildings in the way of the signals. It's not up for debate that ESPN charges by far more than any other channel. It's probably over $10 a month by now. I would ditch ESPN if I could save $10 a month and I'm even a sports fan. Then there are all the baby boomers who all have cable if they can afford it, watching network TV, HGTV, Food Network and Hallmark and that's it while paying over $100 a month for it.
If the government actually enforced anti-trust laws the collapse would happen much faster. But until then, ESPN will do everything they can to force people to pay for it whether they watch or not.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Dec 22, 2019 18:34:25 GMT -5
umassgrad2005 Just a guess but if ESPN is $9 month then 100 million subscribers equates to almost $11 billion a year so it's not as unbalanced as you indicated.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 22, 2019 20:23:29 GMT -5
Good game tonight... more Romeo looking like a player. Is Grant really finding his 3 point stroke? 5 for last 9 after an 0-25 stretch to start his career. He’s playing a lot better offensively.
Tatum was a beast in the 4th tonight but was really good start to finish.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 22, 2019 20:26:23 GMT -5
Also, Jaylen Brown back to back 5 assist games... wouldn’t surprise me if he’s never done that before.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 22, 2019 23:34:26 GMT -5
umassgrad2005 Just a guess but if ESPN is $9 month then 100 million subscribers equates to almost $11 billion a year so it's not as unbalanced as you indicated. You added one too many zeroes, it's $ 1.1 billion, not $11 billion.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 23, 2019 0:26:58 GMT -5
At the end of the day though the Sixers come down to Embiid. Shaq and Barkley are right when they call him out. That guy should dominate every night but he doesn’t and that’s 100% a motor/desire thing for him. He might just go beast mode thru the playoffs. He plays outside far too much. He usually gets the ball beyond the 3 point line, what is he, the Porzingod? He should be banging inside all game long, he looks unstoppable when he's near the basket. I truly don't see why the 6ers don't demand him to camp in there. I know it's the modern NBA and everyone wants to Steph, but Embiid takes 3.6 threes per game. That's insane. He shouldn't take any. And Al is a guy that makes sense on a smaller line-up, like put him around quick guys. Maybe put a Baynes next to him to control the boards, but when it's time for the killer line-up he should be given space for his post game. That's hard to do when Simmons can't shoot and Embiid is or should be parked in the paint. The whole thing is baffling. It's like they make moves with zero regard for the guys they already have, what is their identity? Overpowering guys with size? No, the Lakers are overpowering guys with size. The 6ers are just fools getting in the way of each other.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 23, 2019 10:45:45 GMT -5
Lots to like about these past couple games. Tatum and Brown are becoming more consistent and G Williams has put his shooting woes behind him, hopefully. But how about Romeo? He has looked good, not out of place much for a rookie getting his fist minutes. He is also playing some good D from what I saw.
Interesting team considering all the different guys who have been hurt and how many different guys have stepped up and they have the third best record in the league thru it all.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,451
|
Post by ianrs on Dec 23, 2019 10:46:18 GMT -5
Romeo is proving me so wrong and I am loving it. Looks so smooth out there, and playing hard defense with solid reads.
Grant Williams also rounding into offensive form!
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 23, 2019 11:18:48 GMT -5
Romeo is proving me so wrong and I am loving it. Looks so smooth out there, and playing hard defense with solid reads. Grant Williams also rounding into offensive form! You have been down on Romeo? I didn't think their was enough information out there to be down on him other than staying healthy. He was rated like 5 or 6 coming out of high school so their was always the chance that he was a bargain at 14 for the C's based on a soso freshmen season. He looks pretty comfortable out there for a guy who hasn't played much, smooth skills.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Dec 23, 2019 11:29:09 GMT -5
umassgrad2005 Just a guess but if ESPN is $9 month then 100 million subscribers equates to almost $11 billion a year so it's not as unbalanced as you indicated. You added one too many zeroes, it's $ 1.1 billion, not $11 billion. Umm $9 per month times 100 million subscribers is $900 million per MONTH. So unless a year is a lot short than it used to be that comes out to $10.8 billion
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,451
|
Post by ianrs on Dec 23, 2019 16:08:18 GMT -5
You have been down on Romeo? I didn't think their was enough information out there to be down on him other than staying healthy. He was rated like 5 or 6 coming out of high school so their was always the chance that he was a bargain at 14 for the C's based on a soso freshmen season. He looks pretty comfortable out there for a guy who hasn't played much, smooth skills. I think I was just a little prone to recency bias. I weighted his recent injuries too much and put too much stock into the fact that they sent him to the G-league. I also misread him doing a personal eye test (hence why I am not a scout, hah). I basically thought he looked really slow in videos I watched of him. Now that I have seen him in some NBA game action though, his movement actually comes off as extremely smooth and controlled, almost as if the game is a bit slowed down for him - in a good way. Its rare to see in someone who is only 20 and so talented. His release is also extremely fast and positioning is really high-IQ, far beyond his years. I think part of my disappointment was the fact that I liked a few other players at the time (Clarke, NAW, Herro who was picked just before) which was not a knock on him, more a reflection of my own preferences. I can see why he was so highly rated in HS, as you say hope he can stay healthy. Could have a dynasty in the making.
|
|
|