the ESPN + thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Mar 11, 2006
1,832
1,437
1,743
You paid for COX cable right...then game wasn't free. Unless you are saying game could have been viewed via antenna
Yes you pay for Cox.
But you did not pay extra above that for the same content that is now moved to ESPN+.

Basically the new deal provides ESPN the right to pull back content that the schools kept previously and gave them to ESPN to use on whatever platform they chose. ESPN is then using that right to drive more ESPN+ sales.
This is a win for ESPN and Big 12. ESPN gets more subscriptions for their new streaming service and Big12 gets more revenue.

It is a loss for viewers of providers that previously carried those games at no additional cost. Because now instead of getting those games, they need to pay more to another party.
 

snuffy

Free Harambe!
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Feb 28, 2007
32,814
29,539
1,743
Oklahoma
I have AT&T TV Now (formerly DirecTV Now) and I'm literally just waiting for Amazon to release a Youtube app for FireTV devices so I have a decent option to switch to. ESPECIALLY if they screw the pooch with Disney and lose those channels. Right now the Youtube app is only available on the FireTV stick and FireTV cube. I've have all FireTV boxes which are different for some stupid reason.
I have Fire TV and use the YouTube app and it works fine.
 
Aug 22, 2006
1,345
493
1,713
SE Oklahoma
For you guys having issues with slow internet or data limits PM me and I will share what I use, I am really happy with it and I am not affiliated with the company and won't advertise for them, but will share with you if you ask.
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,334
1,013
1,743
Tramel said in thebradionthe preview he got from the Big 12 had multiple out of conference game sfor OU and OSU and 3 conference game each.
Texas and TCU home games are on ESPN+ and the game at Iowa State as well... plus most of the non-conference, probably 9-10 games total this year.
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,446
1,137
1,743
34
Tulsa
When was the last game that we had that was not televised at all? I honestly cannot remember (maybe because I was at the game?) I remember looking forward to road game tv announcements. No to see when or which channel, but to see IF I would get to watch it or listen to it on the radio.

Although there is something therapeutic about working in the garage while listening to Dave Hunziker call the game over the sonos. I throughly enjoy that from time to time. I always end up going in and watching the DVR for big plays though.
 

PistolPete'sMustache

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Aug 3, 2010
4,201
4,318
743
Tulsa, OK
I'm fine with $5 for tier 3 content, it's a way to watch games like McNeese or basketball against Charleston, and I'm really excited if the baseball games will all be available. But they are really monkey-ing around to get subscribers. There is no way OSU-KSU in football or OSU-Georgetown in basketball are tier 3 material. I would pay it for baseball so I'll get those games too, but the principal of it bothers me.
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
5,027
3,500
1,743
Florida
https://www.hookem.com/2019/04/10/b...ing-deal-without-disrupting-longhorn-network/
Sports Business Journal reported that sources indicated the Big 12 will receive $22 million annually from its new online and broadcast arrangement with ESPN for the final six years of its current deal. The Big 12 has a revenue-sharing financial model, so Texas and OU will get an equal share of this new venture with the other eight schools.

Texas & Oklahoma get to keep the money they generate off of their 3rd tier rights, but they also get a full share of the money generated off of the 3rd tier rights of the other schools in the conference. That's infuriating. :angry:
Most of that money mentioned was for the football championship games that ESPN picked up. There still hasn’t been a great explanation of what exactly these schools are getting for their third tier rights from ESPN. Holder mentioned that we aren’t getting much. So I doubt if we are getting much more (if any) than when we sporadically aired individual events one FSN and out the rest on YouTube.
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,619
3,147
1,743
Most of that money mentioned was for the football championship games that ESPN picked up. There still hasn’t been a great explanation of what exactly these schools are getting for their third tier rights from ESPN. Holder mentioned that we aren’t getting much. So I doubt if we are getting much more (if any) than when we sporadically aired individual events one FSN and out the rest on YouTube.
That's interesting. It kind of begs the question, why are we broadcasting games on ESPN+ if the financial benefit is negligible? All it really does is tax our fanbase and make the games less accessible to the average college football fan. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
5,027
3,500
1,743
Florida
That's interesting. It kind of begs the question, why are we broadcasting games on ESPN+ if the financial benefit is negligible? All it really does is tax our fanbase and make the games less accessible to the average college football fan. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
I personally like the deal, since I like having all the third-tier rights together in one easily accessible spot. However, I really can't answer your question on the benefit is negligible or not. Here is what Holder said, but it doesn't really add much either.

OSU athletic director Mike Holder said that his department is unlikely to reap much revenue from the new agreement, “but there’s a great opportunity for exposure on a platform that’s really exciting. Recruiting athletes, staying in touch with fanbases, donors. Anyone with any interest in Oklahoma State or anyone we might be able to nurture interest, we’re going to be able to touch them.”
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,334
1,013
1,743
That's interesting. It kind of begs the question, why are we broadcasting games on ESPN+ if the financial benefit is negligible? All it really does is tax our fanbase and make the games less accessible to the average college football fan. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
Because that's what the conference had to do to get ESPN to pay for the Big 12 championship games that Fox didn't want anymore. It kinda sucks for the other 8 schools, but it is what it is at this point.
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,446
1,137
1,743
34
Tulsa
Because that's what the conference had to do to get ESPN to pay for the Big 12 championship games that Fox didn't want anymore. It kinda sucks for the other 8 schools, but it is what it is at this point.
We don’t want to complain about the millions of dollars that funnel into our athletic departments from broadcast corporations, we only want to complain about what channel and time they decide to broadcast the game they paid for.
;)
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,619
3,147
1,743
K-State/ESPN + thread
There's a lot of good info about how this happened in this thread. Check out post #81 from the Tulsa World. They link an article explaining how the K-State game ended up on ESPN+.

I'm sure our AD had to sign off on broadcasting an additional football game on ESPN+. I'm not sure if the K-State AD did or not since it's a road game for you.
 
Nov 8, 2013
441
293
613
I know the answer is probably "no", but can we as host school set game time for any events broadcast under Tier 3 rights? That could be beneficial... if the only people watching the game are going to be ESPN+ subscribers specifically looking for an OSU game, then we should never have to play a morning football game broadcast on ESPN+.
 

tmcats

Wrangler
Feb 13, 2014
169
155
593
58
yeah, i've read that thread and the tulsa piece. i was just curious about a more specific take from your a.d., if there was a statement explaining the situation. sometimes departments send their fans explanations that aren't generally shared with others. we've heard nothing from ours.