The Unofficial Furman Football Page

Disney/ESPN launches their new streaming services for pro and college sports on Thursday April 12th. The Southern Conference is one of the conferences included in this service. Will the SoCon digital network go away? Even thought ESPN+ is cheap at $4.99 a month the SoCon Digital network has always bee free. Our games on ESPN3 have always been free also so I guess this will no longer be the case this coming season. FYI, none of ESPN's regular channels will be available on this new streaming service.

apaladin wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:42 am

Disney/ESPN launches their new streaming services for pro and college sports on Thursday April 12th. The Southern Conference is one of the conferences included in this service. Will the SoCon digital network go away? Even thought ESPN+ is cheap at $4.99 a month the SoCon Digital network has always bee free. Our games on ESPN3 have always been free also so I guess this will no longer be the case this coming season. FYI, none of ESPN's regular channels will be available on this new streaming service.

Been asking this question to friends that work in collegiate athletics in video streaming and even they don't really understand how ESPN+ is going to work yet. But if you read between the lines in their press release, it sure does seem like the paid ESPN+ will now be the home of the majority of college games that aren't on TV.

From the release: "COLLEGE SPORTS – THOUSANDS OF GAMES AND EVENTS, MULTIPLE SPORTS, ACROSS NEARLY TWO DOZEN CONFERENCES: The ESPN+ lineup will be rich with thousands of live college sports events, including football, basketball, baseball, softball, soccer, track & field, gymnastics, swimming & diving, lacrosse, wrestling, volleyball, golf and more — from over a dozen conferences across the country including the America East, ASun, Big South, Big West, Horizon, Ivy League, MAAC, MAC, MEAC, Missouri Valley, NEC, Southern Conference, Southland, Summit League, Sun Belt, WAC and many more." https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-rele ... per-month/

That sure doesn't sound like there leaves much room for free games. My uneducated guess is Clemson - South Carolina that's on ESPN will also be available on ESPN3 and not ESPN+, but Furman - Samford will only be available on ESPN+.

It's only about 60 bucks a year and will be awesome to have a home for all the ESPN documentaries - which in my opinion are the only other thing besides live sports that ESPN does well - but this cutting cable thing is sure going to get pricey if this keeps up. Between paying for internet, Netflix, ESPN+, HBOGo, Hulu, etc., it will be about as expensive as regular cable is now.

With all the stupid political crap going on during their broadcasts, they may not be around long. Viewership is tanking.

Well there we go ... http://furmanpaladins.com/general/2017- ... 0411lfw5nt.

Sounds like there's still a chance that some football or hoops games will be on ESPN3 or the ESPN family of networks, but it sounds like a large majority of SoCon games across all sports will now be paid.

ESPN is hurting. They need to raise revenue however they can and this is part of it. Hope it succeeds in raising enough revenue to have a positive return for them so we can see better and better productions of Furman sports online.

I don't think ESPN is hurting. I think It's more about looking at the server stats of how many internet surfers didn't have a TV service provider plan for ESPN3.
They lost millions from people who only wanted to see "that game" on that day but didn't have an interface for ESPN to accept a payment.
People wanted to pay but couldn't; because ESPN did not provide a way or price for them to pay.
All ESPN did for this was provide a payment gateway that wasn't there before.
I predict massive success of this.
And they had better do it anyway because young people are "cutting the cable".
Young people : If it ain't on their phone then it doesn't exist.

sluggo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:51 am

I don't think ESPN is hurting. I think It's more about looking at the server stats of how many internet surfers didn't have a TV service provider plan for ESPN3.
They lost millions from people who only wanted to see "that game" on that day but didn't have an interface for ESPN to accept a payment.
People wanted to pay but couldn't; because ESPN did not provide a way or price for them to pay.
All ESPN did for this was provide a payment gateway that wasn't there before.
I predict massive success of this.
And they had better do it anyway because young people are "cutting the cable".
Young people : If it ain't on their phone then it doesn't exist.

ESPN is hurting. Here is just one of many articles about ESPN and it’s financial woes. https://www.thestreet.com/story/1429878 ... -espn.html

sluggo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:51 am

Young people : If it ain't on their phone then it doesn't exist.

Truer words have never been typed.

sluggo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:51 am

I don't think ESPN is hurting. I think It's more about looking at the server stats of how many internet surfers didn't have a TV service provider plan for ESPN3.
They lost millions from people who only wanted to see "that game" on that day but didn't have an interface for ESPN to accept a payment.
People wanted to pay but couldn't; because ESPN did not provide a way or price for them to pay.
All ESPN did for this was provide a payment gateway that wasn't there before.
I predict massive success of this.
And they had better do it anyway because young people are "cutting the cable".
Young people : If it ain't on their phone then it doesn't exist.

So...if I’m paying for a Television content provider (cable or dish) and have multiple ESPN properties on my TV plan, then they already have their ‘gateway’ into my pocket via that, right. So, they ARE able to provide ESPN3 to me at no extra cost because I pay for their other products, IF THEY WANTED TO. I don’t need the ‘gift’ of a payment gateway for E3.

I’m a Libertarian Capitalist, so they can do whatever they want in my eyes, but I have a hard time seeing something that I once was able to access for no additional cost, but now have to pay extra for as a benefit (to me). I get that this is a benefit to the ‘cordless,’ but they could segment the market via available technology and charge accordingly, if they wanted to...right?

gman wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:19 am

sluggo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:51 am

I don't think ESPN is hurting. I think It's more about looking at the server stats of how many internet surfers didn't have a TV service provider plan for ESPN3.
They lost millions from people who only wanted to see "that game" on that day but didn't have an interface for ESPN to accept a payment.
People wanted to pay but couldn't; because ESPN did not provide a way or price for them to pay.
All ESPN did for this was provide a payment gateway that wasn't there before.
I predict massive success of this.
And they had better do it anyway because young people are "cutting the cable".
Young people : If it ain't on their phone then it doesn't exist.

ESPN is hurting. Here is just one of many articles about ESPN and it’s financial woes. https://www.thestreet.com/story/1429878 ... -espn.html

The article seems to say basically what I said. I just think "hurting" is too strong a word.
They just need to cater more to the younger generation that watches their phone and computer more than TV.
I'm not younger; but I actually do not use a TV either; except in a bar.

FUBeAR wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:48 am

So...if I’m paying for a Television content provider (cable or dish) and have multiple ESPN properties on my TV plan, then they already have their ‘gateway’ into my pocket via that, right. So, they ARE able to provide ESPN3 to me at no extra cost because I pay for their other products, IF THEY WANTED TO. I don’t need the ‘gift’ of a payment gateway for E3.

I’m a Libertarian Capitalist, so they can do whatever they want in my eyes, but I have a hard time seeing something that I once was able to access for no additional cost, but now have to pay extra for as a benefit (to me). I get that this is a benefit to the ‘cordless,’ but they could segment the market via available technology and charge accordingly, if they wanted to...right?

You are right. Once you get ESPN on cable TV, ESPN3 access is free on the internet.
(Unless this just changed, and I don't know it yet)
So the ESPN+ gateway would only be there for non ESPN TV subscribers.
I think that once you get ESPN cable TV then you are set and do not have to pay more.
Making you pay more to view the internet streams would be a mistake.

I haven't read all the details but this is what I think it's going to be.

sluggo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:46 am

FUBeAR wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:48 am

So...if I’m paying for a Television content provider (cable or dish) and have multiple ESPN properties on my TV plan, then they already have their ‘gateway’ into my pocket via that, right. So, they ARE able to provide ESPN3 to me at no extra cost because I pay for their other products, IF THEY WANTED TO. I don’t need the ‘gift’ of a payment gateway for E3.

I’m a Libertarian Capitalist, so they can do whatever they want in my eyes, but I have a hard time seeing something that I once was able to access for no additional cost, but now have to pay extra for as a benefit (to me). I get that this is a benefit to the ‘cordless,’ but they could segment the market via available technology and charge accordingly, if they wanted to...right?

You are right. Once you get ESPN on cable TV, ESPN3 access is free on the internet.
(Unless this just changed, and I don't know it yet)
So the ESPN+ gateway would only be there for non ESPN TV subscribers.
I think that once you get ESPN cable TV then you are set and do not have to pay more.
Making you pay more to view the internet streams would be a mistake.

I haven't read all the details but this is what I think it's going to be.

Don't believe that to be true based on my research unfortunately.

I believe with a TV subscription you'll have access to the stations your provider offers (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, etc.) as well as ESPN3 online, but not ESPN+.

Separately, for basically 5 bucks a month you can also get ESPN+, which broadcasts games, shows or programs that the regular ESPN channels or ESPN3 won't have. So if you cut the cord and only paid for ESPN+, you'll get a lot of stuff, but nothing that's broadcast on the regular ESPN channels or ESPN3. If you want to watch a lot of the random Furman sports, ESPN3 won't cut it anymore. You'll need ESPN+. I'm hoping football will be on ESPN3 as opposed to ESPN+, but I'm not holding my breath.

fufanatic wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:30 pm

sluggo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:46 am

FUBeAR wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:48 am

So...if I’m paying for a Television content provider (cable or dish) and have multiple ESPN properties on my TV plan, then they already have their ‘gateway’ into my pocket via that, right. So, they ARE able to provide ESPN3 to me at no extra cost because I pay for their other products, IF THEY WANTED TO. I don’t need the ‘gift’ of a payment gateway for E3.

I’m a Libertarian Capitalist, so they can do whatever they want in my eyes, but I have a hard time seeing something that I once was able to access for no additional cost, but now have to pay extra for as a benefit (to me). I get that this is a benefit to the ‘cordless,’ but they could segment the market via available technology and charge accordingly, if they wanted to...right?

You are right. Once you get ESPN on cable TV, ESPN3 access is free on the internet.
(Unless this just changed, and I don't know it yet)
So the ESPN+ gateway would only be there for non ESPN TV subscribers.
I think that once you get ESPN cable TV then you are set and do not have to pay more.
Making you pay more to view the internet streams would be a mistake.

I haven't read all the details but this is what I think it's going to be.

Don't believe that to be true based on my research unfortunately.

I believe with a TV subscription you'll have access to the stations your provider offers (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, etc.) as well as ESPN3 online, but not ESPN+.

Separately, for basically 5 bucks a month you can also get ESPN+, which broadcasts games, shows or programs that the regular ESPN channels or ESPN3 won't have. So if you cut the cord and only paid for ESPN+, you'll get a lot of stuff, but nothing that's broadcast on the regular ESPN channels or ESPN3. If you want to watch a lot of the random Furman sports, ESPN3 won't cut it anymore. You'll need ESPN+. I'm hoping football will be on ESPN3 as opposed to ESPN+, but I'm not holding my breath.

Oh well; that was wishful thinking on my part.
I didn't realize the content would be divided like that.
I need a degree in "cableOlogy" to figure out ESPN.

sluggo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:51 am

And they had better do it anyway because young people are "cutting the cable".

Sluggo called me a young people.

Stumpy wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:57 pm

sluggo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:51 am

And they had better do it anyway because young people are "cutting the cable".

Sluggo called me a young people.

I would say cable or cord cutters are an older demographic. Cutters have had and paid for it in the past. Young people may have been exposed to some sort of wired service at their parent's home, or at school, or at work, but they rely almost exclusively on mobile data for their personal needs.