ESPN+

No, ESPN+ will not give you access to the games broadcast on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU.

No, it's not the radio call. The game yesterday Blum did PxP and former player Klay Edwards did color commentary.

I'm not sure what happens with the one home football game that used to be on Cyclones.TV. This year it didn't come into play. But again if the game is on their broadcast networks it will not be on ESPN+
And...
So it seems Blum is getting a big advancement/opportunity in that he is doing all the espn+ ISU games?

Well I do like Blum, did a great job filling in for Walters (when John had covid), but for out of State guys like me I will miss hearing the official call of Walters and Heft. Any way around that?
 
And...
So it seems Blum is getting a big advancement/opportunity in that he is doing all the espn+ ISU games?

Well I do like Blum, did a great job filling in for Walters (when John had covid), but for out of State guys like me I will miss hearing the official call of Walters and Heft. Any way around that?

Walters and Heft are always broadcast live (audio) for football and basketball here:


Usually a facebook live feed too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t-noah
Roger that. Thx!

So yes, if others (other than espn+) have the rights to the game, and if you have espn+ you will still have to wait a few days to see the replay? Is that right? But you get the live audio feed right? From Blum?
I don't know the answer on the replay side.

If a game is on, say, ESPN2 there is no ESPN+ broadcast. Audio or video. You would need to find the radio feed somewhere if that's what you wanted to do.
 
Walters and Heft are always broadcast live (audio) for football and basketball here:


Usually a facebook live feed too.
Yes! I was jt looking TuneIn up before you posted. I think
@CycloneErik
already/also suggested it. I will definitely check it out! Thx
 
Roger that. Thx!

So yes, if others (other than espn+) have the rights to the game, and if you have espn+ you will still have to wait a few days to see the replay? Is that right? But you get the live audio feed right? From Blum?
I don't know the answer on the replay side.

If a game is on, say, ESPN2 there is no ESPN+ broadcast. Audio or video. You would need to find the radio feed somewhere if that's what you wanted to do.
OK yeah thx!

Anyone else on whether not espn+ has delayed broadcasts also? I would think that would be a big selling point/positive, as many of the games espn+ won't have first rights to.
 
Ok so I don't fully understand how streaming works, but I've been having crap quality for the mens game tonight and I did the other day too. I switched to the womens game at half and it is perfectly fine and consistent. I have always assumed my internet just sucks but that seems weird. Any solutions?
 
Ok so I don't fully understand how streaming works, but I've been having crap quality for the mens game tonight and I did the other day too. I switched to the womens game at half and it is perfectly fine and consistent. I have always assumed my internet just sucks but that seems weird. Any solutions?
tenor.gif
 

I would love this since you could cancel it after the Big 12 tournament and not have to subscribe until the last week of August
How would that save you money? I highly doubt your source for OTA/ Live TV (however you were previously accessing ESPN channels) will lower their price.
 
How would that save you money? I highly doubt your source for OTA/ Live TV (however you were previously accessing ESPN channels) will lower their price.

I wonder what the price would be for ESPN to offer all of its content directly to the consumer? Would it be more than $25 a month? I am guessing it will be...
 

I would love this since you could cancel it after the Big 12 tournament and not have to subscribe until the last week of August
Until they either force you to lock in for a full year or make the monthly cost so prohibitive that an annual subscription makes more sense.
 
I wonder what the price would be for ESPN to offer all of its content directly to the consumer? Would it be more than $25 a month? I am guessing it will be...
I know my bill didn’t go down when ESPN Classic went away. I’ve seen figures for what they charge the carriers but can’t remember the exact number. I do recall it’s more than any other provider but they also have 4 channels on most platforms unlike anybody else I can think of.
 
I wonder what the price would be for ESPN to offer all of its content directly to the consumer? Would it be more than $25 a month? I am guessing it will be...

There was a study in 2020 that took the actual carriage rates vs. the number of "regular viewers" -- and it concluded that ESPN by itself (not 2/U/News/+) would cost over $34/mo for each "regular viewer" in order to maintain current revenue levels.

SECN ($19+), ACCN ($16) and BTN ($9+) were all in the Top 5.
 
How would that save you money? I highly doubt your source for OTA/ Live TV (however you were previously accessing ESPN channels) will lower their price.
It depends on the person, of course, but some people (including me) primarily have a live TV subscription only because of live sports. So if ESPN offered a streaming package for all of their content that was cheaper than Sling (what I currently use), there would at least be times of the year that I would probably subscribe to the ESPN package and drop any other live TV.

That being said, if the price point were based on numbers similar to those that @theshadow just mentioned, it probably wouldn't be all that useful to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acylum
It depends on the person, of course, but some people (including me) primarily have a live TV subscription only because of live sports. So if ESPN offered a streaming package for all of their content that was cheaper than Sling (what I currently use), there would at least be times of the year that I would probably subscribe to the ESPN package and drop any other live TV.

That being said, if the price point were based on numbers similar to those that @theshadow just mentioned, it probably wouldn't be all that useful to me.

Also have to consider the other networks that offer live sports such as FS1 etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acylum
Once ESPN goes direct to consumer, I have a feeling the days of multi-channel cable or streaming (YouTubeTV) services are numbered.

As a consumer I would prefer to pay for a DTC: ESPN and (Netflix or Amazon or Apple+ or HBOMax) and (Paramount+ or Peacock) to meet my TV needs. The biggest gap for me today is Marquee not being DTC. One thing that has surprised me the year is amount of programming I watch on free streaming services like: Pluto, Roku, Freevee, YouTube, etc.
 
Once ESPN goes direct to consumer, I have a feeling the days of multi-channel cable or streaming (YouTubeTV) services are numbered.

As a consumer I would prefer to pay for a DTC: ESPN and (Netflix or Amazon or Apple+ or HBOMax) and (Paramount+ or Peacock) to meet my TV needs. The biggest gap for me today is Marquee not being DTC. One thing that has surprised me the year is amount of programming I watch on free streaming services like: Pluto, Roku, Freevee, YouTube, etc.

Multi-channel services are cheaper though...if you add up the cost of individual channels that you (a person in general, not specifically you) watch and pay for each service for what that company will demand for individual customers...it will be more expensive because there won't be as many other customers subsidizing one another. This applies most to those who view live sporting events in addition to some entertainment options.
 
Also have to consider the other networks that offer live sports such as FS1 etc.
That's true, but at least for me, there are times of the year when I'm fine with only the ESPN channels. It's definitely variable; it depends on how many football games Iowa State has on FS1 and when they are, and if there's a specific reason why I want the Big Ten Network or other factors. That landscape will continue to change as TV contracts get renegotiated, but that's where I'm at right now.

But I appreciate the flexibility to pay less for the small sacrifice of not watching the couple non-Iowa State games on FS1 that I would maybe watch if I had it, but also won't miss if I only have access to ESPN. DTC isn't a benefit to all consumers, but it definitely can be to some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyfanatic
Multi-channel services are cheaper though...if you add up the cost of individual channels that you (a person in general, not specifically you) watch and pay for each service for what that company will demand for individual customers...it will be more expensive because there won't be as many other customers subsidizing one another. This applies most to those who view live sporting events in addition to some entertainment options.
Maybe for a family with diverse interests.

Right now the major media companies require multi-channel entities bundle a group of channels and force the multi-channel entities buy the whole package of what could be 10+ channels. ESPN (sports) is focused, other bundles offer varied interest channels in their bundle. When Warner Brothers/Discovery has to go direct to consumer, will they be able to get the same price as with cable carriage fees? If customers only watch 1 or 2 channels, a 10 channel bundle price might not be a value for a consumer vs. a cable/streaming company. This might test the business model for Time Warner, Paramount, Comcast/NBCUniversal.

Look at the Disney bundle that included: ESPN+, Disney+ and Hulu+. All for less than $15/month. We might find that media companies face more accountability for their prices when their products are unbundled.

Plus we are already seeing the streaming industry evolve. Amazon and Netflix used to be entirely subscription based and no commercials. Amazon now offers Freevee (free with commercials) and Netflix offers a discounted subscription with commercials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyfanatic

Help Support Us

Become a patron