Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

Hulu+Live has ESPN+ integrated in, and is included with it for same price as YTTV. Hulu+Live you get ESPN+ and Disney+ included, and ESPN+ is integrated into Hulu. Plus unlimited cloud DVR. And all the channels maybe more than YTTV. Live and on demand. And can use voice control although I don't use that feature.

Hulu+Live, includes everything that has any football on it except, Longhorn Net and P12Net, and I guess Amazon.

Includes:
BTN
SECN
ACCN
ESPN,2,U,News and ESPN+
ESPN college xtra
FS1, FS2
CBSSN
NBCsports
Local-ABC,CBS,NBC,Fox

Plus:
Golf channel, and NFL Channel, Olympic chan
I think that's all the sports

Disney+ included too.
I bunked with Brian Ferentz in section 8 housing... he was on top.

I have Hulu+Live and most of what you say is correct but it doesn't have all the same channels as YTTV. Hulu doesn't get AMC, and there might be others, that YTTV does offer.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Arkansas Cyclone
I bunked with Brian Ferentz in section 8 housing... he was on top.

I have Hulu+Live and most of what you say is correct but it doesn't have all the same channels as YTTV. Hulu doesn't get AMC, and there might be others, that YTTV does offer.
I tried to look up a comparison for channels, and I found none of them were right, so I didnt go with them. Many of them showed several channels as not on Hulu+Live but are. So I didnt know how accurate any of the info was.

I actually kind of forgot about AMC not being on, used to watch it, and so much has been added that I didnt realize it was still not there.

Edit:
This is the best list I found: But it shows Hulu+LIve not having all the nick, MTV channels, which it does. Also shows no mention of Magnolia net/DIY which it does.

So Probably still missing AMC, Hallmark, IFC, The weather Channel, NBA,MLB too. Although if the list is correct looks like a few channels are missing on YTTV too, ie Lifetime, LTM, A&E, NatGeo,History, Military,Bloomber,boom, and a few more and that doesnt come with ESPN+ and Disney+.

 
Last edited:
I tried to look up a comparison for channels, and I found none of them were right, so I didnt go with them. Many of them showed several channels as not on Hulu+Live but are. So I didnt know how accurate any of the info was.

I actually kind of forgot about AMC not being on, used to watch it, and so much has been added that I didnt realize it was still not there.
I bunked with Brian Ferentz in section 8 housing... he was on top.

Yeah we were choosing between Hulu and YTTV. Went with Hulu because it has History Channel, which YTTV doesn't. History channel is one of the top channels I watch, so had to go with Hulu, but I do miss AMC.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Jeremy and 2speedy1
It probably depends a lot on demographics, specifically age.

For people under 35, if a game was exclusively on Prime or something they could subscribe to for $5/10 month they'd probably be more likely to see it than if it required a cable subscription or OTA (lots of younger people don't even know about OTA, even some middle aged people who grew up with cable barely know about OTA).

For the over 35 demographic having it streaming only probably plunges the viewership.

I'm just pulling 35 out of my @$$ but there's definitely an age where streaming makes it more likely to be seen by younger audiences. The way to really maximize viewership in the right now would be if ESPN had their cable tv games also available to stream on ESPN+ for a low monthly no contract fee. That's not in their best interest right now but some day that will probably happen for a few years when cable TV actually is dying.
To your ESPN+ having the main linear ESPN networks on there is happening. Not sure when but it will be happening sooner than most think based on reports.
 
To your ESPN+ having the main linear ESPN networks on there is happening. Not sure when but it will be happening sooner than most think based on reports.

The minute that happens ISU goes from a 50ish brand to a 25ish.

Real viewers. Put Rutgers and NW on streaming and get a true hard count of the tiny sliver of their metros who watch.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Die4Cy
The minute that happens ISU goes from a 50ish brand to a 25ish.

Real viewers. Put Rutgers and NW on streaming and get a true hard count of the tiny sliver of their metros who watch.
Agreed. ESPN knows the biggest complaint is people feeling duped by getting ESPN+ and finding out you don’t get the main channels that everyone wants. That will all be onboarded to ESPN+ within the next two years I would guess.
 
The Big 12 has a ton of affiliate members who don't play football with the conference.

View attachment 103444

What would make Gonzaga basketball different?
This is what I found in the Handbook about conference affiliation etc. I don't find anything about affiliate members.

Only thing I can assume is they only bring in affiliates when one full member does not play a sport, in order to fill out a membership in that sport.

Football is required.


1663885721334.png
 
I think basketball is going to be more influential towards the value of a school or conference's media rights going forward. Basketball inventory should have more value in a streaming world --

(1.) Diehard fans are the ones who are going to pony up money for streaming services, and they are going to want to watch their basketball teams as much as their football teams.

(2.) Streaming services are going to need something to keep subscribers from developing a seasonal pattern of picking the subscription up in the fall and dropping it down in January. Basketball stretches things out into March and April, which might mean more people keep the service all year.

(3.) There aren't many marquis programs left in football or men's basketball that haven't already signed up with one of the power conferences. Gonzaga basketball might be the last one.

Yes, the travel would be insane for them (not that it wouldn't for U$C and UCLA and hey they signed up for it for Big Ten money and they were making a lot more in the Pac-12 than Gonzaga is making in the WCC. Yes, the Zags can mint a high seed every season now, but that might change in the future as the "power" keeps concentrating in the high-major conferences. U$C had an easier runway to the CFP dominating the Pac-12 but they decided, again, the check had too many zeroes on it to refuse the Big Ten.

I don't think it would happen, but a basketball conference of (using last year's Torvik rankings) --

#1 Gonzaga
#2 Houston
#3 Kansas (national champion)
#4 Texas Tech
#5 Baylor
#9 Arizona
#26 TCU
#33 Oklahoma State
#43 Iowa State
#57 West Virginia
#65 Kansas State
#74 BYU
#83 Arizona State
#85 Colorado
#96 Cincinnati
#98 UCF
#123 Utah

Would be bonkers. Imagine a full round-robin against that monster.
Totally agree with the basketball being amazing, disagree on basketballs effect on streaming.

Only amazon and apple currently offer live sports as streaming services. the question now has to be does this streaming service benefit from having the rights to that content. Something like the NFL is a no brainer, similar for MLS because it is stupid cheap. The question is does something like cbb actually drive increased subscriptions or keep people subscribed. For a company like amazon who already has a massive base with prime it probably doesn't help, for apple though it might. Will be very interesting to see details whenever a streaming partner comes into play.
 
Agreed. ESPN knows the biggest complaint is people feeling duped by getting ESPN+ and finding out you don’t get the main channels that everyone wants. That will all be onboarded to ESPN+ within the next two years I would guess.
Strong disagree. The moment they do that they are going to lose a lot of the carrying fees for cable and yttv. ESPN+ is already struggling outside of the bundle and they just doubled the price. No way they essentially abandon the OTA stuff like that.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: jctisu
Totally agree with the basketball being amazing, disagree on basketballs effect on streaming.

Only amazon and apple currently offer live sports as streaming services. the question now has to be does this streaming service benefit from having the rights to that content. Something like the NFL is a no brainer, similar for MLS because it is stupid cheap. The question is does something like cbb actually drive increased subscriptions or keep people subscribed. For a company like amazon who already has a massive base with prime it probably doesn't help, for apple though it might. Will be very interesting to see details whenever a streaming partner comes into play.

Peacock and Paramount+ both also have sports.

Strong disagree. The moment they do that they are going to lose a lot of the carrying fees for cable and yttv. ESPN+ is already struggling outside of the bundle and they just doubled the price. No way they essentially abandon the OTA stuff like that.

I think part of the problem is most if not all the other services come with the content from their linear channels.

Discovery+ comes with originals, plus content from CNN, History, Magnolia,ID, Hgtv,TLC, Food, Own, Trvl, Animl planet,A&E, SCI, Lifetime, and more.

Paramount+ includes all the content from CBS, MTV, BET, MTV, Comedy Cent, Nick, Smithsonian, etc, plus Movies and sports.

Peacock includes all content from NBC plus all the content from 50+NBC networks including Sports and Movies.

Most of these streaming platforms not only include the streaming only content, but also include all the content on their cable channels, on demand and/or live. ESPN+ not including it unless you log in with a provider is not the norm, and is hurting the platform.
 
Strong disagree. The moment they do that they are going to lose a lot of the carrying fees for cable and yttv. ESPN+ is already struggling outside of the bundle and they just doubled the price. No way they essentially abandon the OTA stuff like that.
Doubled the price? Of ESPN+ only?
 
Peacock and Paramount+ both also have sports.



I think part of the problem is most if not all the other services come with the content from their linear channels.

Discovery+ comes with originals, plus content from CNN, History, Magnolia,ID, Hgtv,TLC, Food, Own, Trvl, Animl planet,A&E, SCI, Lifetime, and more.

Paramount+ includes all the content from CBS, MTV, BET, MTV, Comedy Cent, Nick, Smithsonian, etc, plus Movies and sports.

Peacock includes all content from NBC plus all the content from 50+NBC networks including Sports and Movies.

Most of these streaming platforms not only include the streaming only content, but also include all the content on their cable channels, on demand and/or live. ESPN+ not including it unless you log in with a provider is not the norm, and is hurting the platform.
Does paramount have anything other then champions league? Peacock is a massive oversight by me considering i watch premier league on it every weekend. I think those two are different though since they are free channels not attached to cable packages the way espn is.
 
Went from 4.99 to 9.99, got an email about it last month.
I suspect that is a tactic to push more people to their inhouse services. Being Disney owns Hulu, ESPN etc.
By raising the prices of ESPN+ and Disney Plus outside the Hulu+ bundle and keeping the bundle the same price as YTTV it will push more people to their service.

Otherwise those outside the service will be forced to pay more. Win Win for them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Die4Cy
I suspect that is a tactic to push more people to their inhouse services. Being Disney owns Hulu, ESPN etc.
By raising the prices of ESPN+ and Disney Plus outside the Hulu+ bundle and keeping the bundle the same price as YTTV it will push more people to their service.

Otherwise those outside the service will be forced to pay more. Win Win for them.
Isn't the bundle only good for a year or am i off base on that?
 
Does paramount have anything other then champions league? Peacock is a massive oversight by me considering i watch premier league on it every weekend. I think those two are different though since they are free channels not attached to cable packages the way espn is.
Paramount has all their cable channels besides CBS too like MTV, BET, Comedy Cent, etc , plus originals like 1883.
Sports like NFL, SEC football, Champions League, a few other soccer leagues.

Peacock has sports like, Sunday night Football, NFL, Golf, Golf Channel, Premier league, Notre Dame, MLB, IndyCar, LeMans, Track and Field, Horse Racing, Cycling, WWE, FiFa, etc.
And original content, Besides the shows on all the networks owned by NBC Universal.


Both include movies, some new releases, like Peacock has the new Jurassic Park. Both bring several new movies each month just out of theaters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlySpartan
Isn't the bundle only good for a year or am i off base on that?
No its not limited.

I dont even think its considered a bundle anymore. You just get Disney+ and ESPN+ with Hulu+Live. The way I read it, it just all in one. Used to be a bundle now its just all included the way I read it.

But like I said I have had it since It was offered because it was cheap as a bundle, Now I think its just included.


1663891583519.png
1663891631081.png
1663891692866.png
 
The minute that happens ISU goes from a 50ish brand to a 25ish.

Real viewers. Put Rutgers and NW on streaming and get a true hard count of the tiny sliver of their metros who watch.
I would hope; but between rural Wi-Fi, cheap fans and those looking to “teach ESPN a lesson” some at CF temper my expectations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KnappShack

Help Support Us

Become a patron