Home Blog Page 255

Netflix and Sports: The next disruption in media and entertainment

By
Jeremy Evans
-
0

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has said on several occasions Netflix will not enter the live sports content space. However, what we know about Netflix is that it is a powerhouse for content and its customers always want more content. While Hastings does not want to follow the broader business model of Amazon and sports-specific companies and streamers that broker sports distribution deals, will a time come when Netflix enters the live sports space or will the company let its competitors continue to take the lead and profits? 

Netflix would be wise to compete in the sports space for three very important reasons. 

First, entertainment content and talent are expensive and hard to create. As consumers continue to demand more content now and instantaneously available, the price goes up and gets pushed to the customer. That is a hard business model to sustain because ultimately, the price per customer rises to the level of cable. Without change, new business leaders will find a more efficient and cheaper way to reach consumers and consumers will follow those leaders. That means lost revenues for Netflix. Having live and “classic” replays on their platform provides for relief from creating and/or purchasing new film and television content with additional revenue opportunities (i.e., pre and post-game commercials and in-game sponsorships, essential where live sports is one of the few remaining types of content consumed in real time). Netflix should want those customers. 

Second, ignoring live sports content ignores the opportunity to obtain pre-developed content Netflix only has to purchase and stream on its current or new “NetflixSPORTS” or “NetflixGAMES” platform. There is literally no development, production, etc., just purchase and stream. Netflix is also used to this model since the company purchases film and television content to stream on its platform that it does not develop as an original series or film. 

Third, Netflix wants its customers to stay on its platform, so why risk having customers leave their platform to watch sports on a competitor’s over-the-top (OTT) streamer, etc. Having sports content keeps Netflix customers engaged and binging. 

Assuming Netflix takes the plunge in sports content, here is how it might play out in the market place: 

NetflixSPORTS/NetflixGAMES: “All Sports, No Commercials” ™ 

Netflix could either have live content on its existing platform or add a second, sports-specific OTT, direct-to-consumer (DTC) distribution option, while keeping its customers engaged with its products. Netflix prides itself on having no commercials, and while baseball and other sports fans are tired of long commercial breaks, especially during nationally televised games, why not offer a “no-commercial,” NetflixSPORTS/NetflixGAMES-exclusive option that charges more for live sports without commercials? This would solve the length issues, plus consumers would pay more for no commercials. 

OTT DTC streamers like Amazon, Hulu, YouTube TV and soon-to-be Apple and Disney already do this for film and television content, while subscription video on demand (SVOD) and advertising video on demand (AVOD) services offer premium and advertising content options for consumers. Sports are the obvious next choice to add to those platforms. Remember, it was not long ago that cable providers missed the boat by continuing in commercial-led business models for film and television content before being mowed over by the tech giants. Now, these same cable providers, along with studios and telecom giants, cannot buy each other fast enough to compete with the tech companies who started the industry disruption. 

NetflixSPORTS could be the next best thing. 

Hosting Other’s Sports Content  

As mentioned previously, sports content is expensive, but there are no development costs. Honestly, Netflix and other streamers would be wise to jump on sports content before the professional sports franchises (e.g., the New York Yankees/YES Network) and the NCAA to some extent, get wise and start streaming content on their own platforms, thus cutting out the middle man. Netflix has already shown a willingness to jump into the games space with some industry confusion on where that might lead, so again, why not sports? 

For costs, consider this; in Hollywood it takes about $100 million to make one movie, with some reaching into the billions. That is for one movie. Amazon just paid $65 million for an entire season of Thursday Night Football (TNF) games. As part of its two-year, $130 million deal, it receives 30 games. Now, the obvious argument against sports content is Netflix prefers to own original content versus licensing it and movies that last forever versus live sports content. However, this argument is shortsighted because sports are replayed constantly and of course, the viewing audiences are so large for live content, especially in the NFL; there is significant value Netflix is not tapping into. 

For example, Hulu hosted the NHL playoffs and Google’s YouTube has the NBA Finals. In Major League Soccer, LAFC and the Seattle Sounders partnered with YouTube, too. Netflix would have the financial resources to purchase content and chose how to distribute it, monetize it and determine whether to develop it beyond a typical streaming deal. Amazon rolled the cost for its NFL TNF purchase into existing Prime accounts, while it was free to its Twitch members. Hulu was charging $40 per month for a multitude of sports content, including the NHL playoff games. YouTube TV is $35 a month. If Netflix purchased sports content and excluded commercials for a premium price, it would also increase viewership because again, sports fans will pay more to skip commercials. 

Replays on NetflixSPORTS / NetflixGAMES is the Answer to YouTube without the Commercials and IP Infringement 

As previously noted, Netflix could offer both commercial and non-commercial live sports options. Live sports are also a huge draw. No current provider anywhere offers commercial- free live sports. The same offer could apply to replays, think ESPN Classic. Furthermore, since Netflix is a closed subscription platform, no one posts content to the Netflix platform except Netflix. This means Netflix limits its liability by controlling its platform for distribution. Imagine being able to watch infringement and commercial-free live sports content on Netflix. Viewers have also shown an interest in watching their favorite team games when they want via a record-and-watch feature. Netflix could just as well have that feature and currently does with its library of entertainment content. 

As the debate regarding net neutrality continues, Netflix can jump into that debate by offering consumers options for commercial and infringement-free live and replay sports content (albeit expensive) for the purpose of offering new and different material. Continuing to charge more for expensive-to-produce film and television content is risky. It makes more sense for them to diversify their assets. 

Jonathan Perelman, Head of Digital Ventures at ICM Partners and former Vice President of Motion Pictures at BuzzFeed, famously said, “Content is king, but distribution is queen and she wears the pants. It’s not nearly enough to create a good piece of content. You have to understand how content spreads across the web.” Netflix and all streamers need to take the next plunge in distribution by competing for live and replay sports content that has the opportunity to be both commercial and infringement-free. 

It is also possible to envision a traditional cable provider that owns or licenses sports content to partner with a sports team or league that distributes either exclusively, or as an add-on through a steamer, to drive down costs and mitigate risk while reaching more viewers. 

Will NetflixSPORTS/NetflixGAMES, in both premium/exclusive and advertising options, be available soon? Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has said no to date, but it is never a good idea to let competitors dominate a space or be at the head of change and disruption. 

Like studios wanting to skip traditional distribution windows, schedules and models by going DTC for a premium price while fighting movie theaters and the Academy who argue the more traditional route is best, Netflix and streamers would be wise to buck tradition and give Queen Distribution the opportunity she has been looking for; All Sports, No Commercials streamed at your convenience for a lesser price than traditional cable. 

The West Coast is the best coast

By
Stephen Patrick
-
0
Seahawks Training Camp / Joshua Bessex (The News Tribune)

Football fans, rejoice! It’s pigskin season and a year can change everything. Just last year, the Seahawks were the class of the division. Then, a massive trade happened, a new coaching staff was hired and a talented quarterback was drafted. The NFC West is now one of the best divisions in the NFL. It’s training camp time in the NFL. How does your favorite team stack up? Who will be the king of the west? We lay the gauntlet down in our seasonal analysis. 

San Francisco 49ers 

The San Francisco 49ers began 2017 with a 1-10 record, however a blockbuster trade and the acquisition of Jimmy Garoppolo from the Patriots lead to five, straight wins to close out the year. The only passers with better efficiency numbers in that same time frame were Jared Goff, Tom Brady and Alex Smith. If Jimmy G can play on the same level he did for the latter part of last season, the 49ers will make the playoffs. San Francisco will soar in NFC West. Having now what appears to be a franchise QB, San Francisco is in good shape to join the Packers as a team that makes the playoffs this season after missing out last year. 

Seattle Seahawks 

We’re about to see if Russell Wilson can live up to his contract. The Seahawks lost numerous defensive pieces including cornerback Richard Sherman and defensive end Michael Bennet, Jr. The Legion of Boom figures to take a step back, but it’s now time for the offense to shine. Seattle picked a running back in the first round of the draft. Since Max Unger departed, the Seahawks’ offensive line has been shaky. It’s most significant addition to the line came in the from fifth-round selection Jamarco Jones. 

Los Angeles Rams  

The biggest surprise from last year was the L.A. Rams. With new head coach Sean McVay, the Rams played light years ahead of schedule. They are one of best teams in the league especially with defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh now on the roster. With a top-notch offense lead by running back Todd Gurley and with an even better defense, the Rams look to take the throne from the Seahawks. Because of their success in 2017, the Rams will get everyone’s best punch and face one of the toughest schedules in the league this season. 

Arizona Cardinals 

The Arizona Cardinals drafted UCLA QB Josh Rosen now that Carson Palmer retired. Arizona is in rebuilding mode. The Cardinals also lost defensive coordinator James Bettcher to the New York Giants. With the entrance of Steve Wilks and Al Holcomb to the team, the Cardinals’ defensive scheme will switch from the 3-4 to a 4-3 defense. This defense will allow last season’s starting outside linebackers Chandler Jones and Markus Golden to move to their natural position of defensive end and attack the quarterback. Chandler Jones is coming off the best season of his career. He made the Pro Bowl and led the NFL with 17 sacks and 28 tackles-for-loss in 2017. 

Mullen’s recruiting is struggling in the swamp

By
J.T. Clifton
-
0
Dan Mullen / Photo Courtesy of: USATSI

Dan Mullen was once the guy many Tennessee fans wanted to hire after Butch Jones left. I found that out the hard way after I tweeted, “Dan Mullen? A guy that’s won nothing? Where has Miss St. recruiting finished?” in response to a fan/reporter telling me his first call after Jon Gruden would be Mullen. Obviously, Mullen is now at Florida and Pruitt at Tennessee, but it looks more and more like I could be right about Mullen. 

On July 23, a talented, four-star, wide receiver named Mycah Pittman committed to the University of Oregon over Florida. At first glance, you’d think it’s just another receiver out of a ton of them out there. However, when you dive into how it really went down, it looks bad for Mullen. 

First, Oregon is obviously not a passing juggernaut, so it’s not like this young man believes his stats could be worlds above if he’d gone to Florida. So, the next problem could have been he’s from the West Coast and Oregon was simply closer. “The distance is no issue,” Pittman replied when asked about the matter. “I lived in Florida for a long time, since my dad (Michael Pittman) played for the Bucs. I lived in Florida for 10 years.”  

Mycah Pittman / Photo Courtesy of: 247 Sports

Another very weird thing Pittman claimed after a recruiting visit to Florida was the staff of the Gators recruited by negatively talking about their current wide receivers. Four-Stars Jacob Copeland and Justin Watkins committed to the Gators last year and Pittman said the coaches talked about how the young players are having a hard time picking up the playbook and that’s why there’s plenty of playing time available. 

Currently, the Florida Gators have 11 players committed with four 4-stars and seven three-stars in their 2019 class. I know it’s early, but to that same respect, first-year coach Jeremy Pruitt has 14 commitments, including one five-star and six four-stars at Tennessee, a harder place to recruit since you have to go outside the state for maximum talent.  

Mullen was a success at Mississippi State without the stars in recruiting, so this might not be a bad sign for the Gators. Even so, it’s hard to look past the corny things Mullen is doing on the recruiting trail. It’s either him wearing Jordans with dress clothes or finger-mouthing like kids with grills do in selfie photos. Florida coaches shouldn’t have to do that. They’re in a hotbed of recruiting and storied programs. 

Come ‘Heel or high water: Is UNC’s football program sinking?

By
Stephen Patrick
-
0
Photo Courtesy of: USATSI

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill football program seems like the Titanic. Following their basketball scandal, the football team is now in trouble. Up to a dozen North Carolina football players could face disciplinary action for selling university-issued shoes and athletic gear, fueling the argument college athletes should be compensated. North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham said the infractions were self-reported earlier in the year. 

“When we became aware of a situation within the football program, we self-reported what the NCAA deemed to be a secondary violation,” Cunningham said. “I worked closely with Chancellor [Carol] Folt and Coach [Larry] Fedora to address this issue from an NCAA, University and Department of Athletics perspective, and we have taken appropriate disciplinary action.” 

Depending on the NCAA’s investigation Players involved could be suspended for one or more games each. What appeared to be UNC entering the higher ranks of college football and four consecutive bowl appearances proved premature, as the Tar Heels struggled last year with a 3-9 record. That marked their worst performance since posting the same 3-9 record in 2006.  

This comes as North Carolina coach Larry Fedora suggested during ACC Media Day college football is under attack due to sports medicine’s focus on head injuries, specifically chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Additionally, he equated the nation’s aversion to football in the wake of the NFL’s kneeling controversy to the country “going downhill.”  

Larry Fedora ACC Media Days / Photo courtesy of: USATSI

“There will be decline of our country, there’s no doubt,” Fedora said. “There’s no doubt in my mind. I think because the lessons you learn in the game of football relate to everything that’s going to happen in the rest of your life, and if we stop learning those lessons we’re going to struggle and I think in some ways we’re struggling more now than we ever have. Are we ever going to be a perfect country? No, not by any means but I do think the game of football has had a major impact on who we are as a country.” 

There’s no doubt football is an important part of American culture as it’s the most popular sport in the country. It’s provided opportunities for thousands of people to make millions of dollars. Advances in CTE treatment and research will help millions of people, not just football players. 

Football is a violent game and for the majority of the sport’s inception, head trauma was not taken seriously. But CTE is real, the links between repeated concussions and long-term brain damage are proven. Larry Fedora’s comments could damage a program that’s taken a significant step backwards from scandal. To deny any of this, as Fedora has, means he has no respect for the science of CTE. These missteps could signal the end of the Fedora era if he’s not careful. Especially in the Atlantic Coast Conference as it’s now become one of the premier college football conferences in the country. Fedora might want to ask UNC basketball coach Roy Williams how he survived dishonor. 

Fantasy Football: Win the Ring, avoid these players!

By
J.T. Clifton
-
0
Demaryius Thomas / Jack Dempsey (APSI)

It’s almost that time of year again. Time to think of a catchy name. Time get your big board ready. Time to try and win some money in fantasy football. Follow along in this three-part series and I’ll tell you which players to avoid, players to jump on early and players that’ll be a steal late in the draft. Let’s start with players you can take off your big board early so you can focus on finding the sleepers. 

  1. Jarvis Landry: WR (Browns) Last year, Landry would have been a good player in a PPR league (unfortunately mine wasn’t). It was misery watching him catch screen after screen after 2 yard drag. Ending up 42 yards receiving on way too many catches for that. Landry had problems finding the end zone, too. This isn’t going to change in Cleveland. He has a new quarterback throwing to him and he’ll also be alongside a seemingly clear-headed Josh Gordon. He’s worth a later pick as a WR, but don’t reach for Landry. 
  1. Dak Prescott:QB (Cowboys)
    Dak Prescott / Ian Halperin (UPI)

    Prescott lost Dez Bryant and Jason Witten this year, so now he’s throwing to Allen Hurns and Cole Beasley. Prescott is young and still needs that reliable check-down like Witten. The teams are going to stack the box against Elliott and force Prescott to beat them. The problem is, he’s not built to beat teams. He’s a game manager. If the Cowboys fall behind early, it could lead to problems for Prescott. 

  1. Allen Robinson:WR (Bears) Robinson has all the talent in the world, but sometimes it seems like his effort is lacking. He went from a 1,400-yard season to an 883-yard season in 2016. He only played one game last year and now he has a big, new contract that’s going to motivate him even less. Mitchell Trubisky isn’t a world-beater at QB, so expect Robinson to produce around the same he did in 2016, maybe less. 
  2. Derrick Henry:RB (Titans) Henry was supposed to “The Man” in Tennessee this year until Dion Lewis was signed. Now, he’ll split time again with the veteran, former Patriots back. Henry wasn’t already involved much in the passing game, catching 11 passes all of last year. Henry finished with 744 yards last year, including two, garbage time TD’s of 72 and 75 yards against the Texans and Colts. He’s not avoidable, but don’t take him over some of the better running backs. 
  3. Demaryius Thomas:WR (Broncos)Thomas has seen a downgrade in his stats every year since Manning left. He didn’t finish with 1,000 yards last year, the first time since 2011. He’s getting older (30) and he’s now on the same vegan diet that essentially killed Arian Foster’s career. It’s been noted the wide receiver has lost strength since his dietary changeup. I still don’t fully trust Case Keenum, either. This makes Thomas a no-go for me.  

Strictly Content: The better steward of Fox’s assets is Comcast, Disney or…

By
Jeremy Evans
-
0

Until recently, before Comcast dropped out of the bidding, most of the discussion over the sale of Fox’s entertainment assets centered around who could pay more? Disney won the bidding process and paid $20 billion more than their initial offer. However, the more important question is, who is best suited to steward Fox’s entertainment assets? Comcast, Disney, another tech streamer, a cable or telephone company or Fox? 

Assuming the deal is approved by the company board’s and horizontal antitrust issues aside, here is what each prospective buyer might have and will (e.g., Disney) look like as an owner. 

Comcast 

Money, as with Disney, is not an issue. Comcast owns NBCUniversal and a 30% stake in Hulu, like Disney and Fox. Comcast is the largest broadcasting and cable television company in the world by revenue. Disney is second only to AT&T-Time Warner, who recently merged to become the largest pay-TV company, the largest cable TV company, the largest home Internet service provider in the United States and the nation’s third-largest home telephone service provider. Clearly, the infrastructure is in place. Comcast also owns several studios including DreamWorks.   

Comcast would have the ability to distribute content on any of its platforms and channels including Hulu, which it would own a 60% stake in if the sale were completed with Fox. Additionally, Comcast does not have the one, major issue concerning Disney; morality of content. Disney is a family-style content company, specifically when it comes to film and television. Fox is not. Hulu is also a well-known, utilized platform and customers would receive the added benefit of more content on an existing platform, albeit for a likely higher price. This as opposed to Disney’s platform that is in development. Is Disney willing to change its character from a family-friendly company to something broader? Is Comcast too big with Fox’s assets? Would the Justice Department challenge its potential purchase? 

Arguably, Comcast would have been a better television and streaming partner (via its existing networks, platforms and Hulu), but it does not have the current film resources to challenge Disney, which Disney knew and pounced on securing the deal with Fox. 

Disney 

The real question here is, does Disney actually need Fox’s assets? While looking at the most recent film releases, ESPN+’s performance and a Netflix-style platform in the works, Disney is already dominating the entertainment, media and sports landscape and will likely continue to do so. The Walt Disney Company is also the third largest by revenue in the world behind Comcast and AT&T-Time Warner. Although the deal with Time Warner likely places AT&T number one in some categories now, along with having the cell phone market cornered, Disney owns ABC, ESPN, a 30% stake in Hulu and much more including studios Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm Ltd. 

However, the United Kingdom’s Sky News property plays a role here because where Disney’s ABC has struggled to compete with Fox’s news service (as has everyone else), both Comcast and Disney have been approved in the UK to purchase Sky and both companies would be wise to add international influence and news where many American studios already have lots and offices. 

Comcast and Disney are also in a race for the control of Hulu, a potential challenger to Netflix with the right leadership and content. Additionally, they already have sports on the platform having broadcast the NHL playoffs and other major events.  

Disney should and must find a way for the Disney and Fox properties to play well together, or separately, like car companies do with brands, makes and models. From a business dominance standpoint, Disney just could not pass on the opportunity to purchase a major studio’s (e.g., Fox) entertainment assets, while letting a competitor do to them what it just did to Comcast/NBCUniversal.  

With its purchase, Disney will now be in a great position to challenge Netflix with its newly added content and 60% ownership in Hulu, plus its own existing and developing platforms. 

Someone Else 

Although there were rumors, no tech/streaming/entertainment giant publicly entered the Fox picture as a potential buyer. Amazon could have benefited from Fox’s content on Amazon Prime. Apple could also have immediately added content to its up-and-coming studio. Also, let us not forget about Netflix, because whoever own Fox’s assets will likely remove their content from Netflix’s platform (like Disney is already doing) and onto their own like Hulu, etc. Then again, the streamers might also be well-suited to avoid horizontal or vertical antitrust issues, not to mention their focus on developing original content, without the legal, clearance, and rights encumbrances. For major news companies, adding Sky News would add to their international exposure, but where a net gain might be a net loss for a competitor, a traditional news company adding significant entertainment properties (and debt), would not be wise. 

Fox 

Rupert Murdoch wanting to sell is the end of a storied career in entertainment, media and sports. Murdoch will still own Fox News, plus FS1 and other sports stations, but Disney must sell-off the regional sports networks as part of the deal. 21st Century as a studio is world renowned and when looking at the success of recent films, is the only studio (in both film and television) competing with Disney in terms of blockbusters and money-makers. It would have been great for business and content to see the company continue to compete with the other greats and at the least split the company between Murdoch’s sons as its new leaders. Moreover, Fox could lose some of its culture in a sale with Disney.  

Maybe Fox should have sold its television programs and rights to Comcast and movie properties to Disney. Maybe the split negotiation would have driven up the price and profit for Fox. Maybe Comcast and Disney refused to deal unless it was for all entertainment assets. 

When it comes to controlling content in today’s environment, everyone wants to own it, distribute it and watch it. How the market shakes out is important, but ultimately, the questions should go beyond just who has the most money to make a purchase. The real question is, who will be the best steward of Fox assets? It may indeed have been Fox itself, but Disney was also best situated to challenge the entertainment newcomers. Fox sold high while turning its focus to news and sports. 

The Chosen 1…

    By
    Julian Shipp
    -
    0
    LeBron James Chosen 1 Tattoo / (AP Photo)

    Louisville Strong: Which Cardinal will have a breakout season?

    By
    Stephen Patrick
    -
    0
    Photo Courtesy of: (USATSI)

    Coach Bobby Petrino and the University of Louisville Cardinals will have a tough order as they look to replace 14 starters from last year’s team. Most glaringly absent is former Heisman Trophy winner Lamar Jackson. Even with its losses, Louisville retains lots of talent and fielded a solid 2018 recruiting class. Which Cardinals will have a breakout season after all the talent has left? Let’s take a look.  

    P.J. Blue  

    After years of drawbacks, P.J. Blue finally takes the field. There might not be a player fans are more excited about than Blue. The 6’4” outside linebacker picked UofL over Oklahoma, Clemson and Alabama, among other powerhouse programs. In 2016 as an athletic linebacker/safety hybrid, Blue was expected to take Josh Harvey-Clemon’s position after he departed. After redshirting, Blue saw his redshirt freshman season come to an early exit due to a knee injury. This season, Blue is finally healthy and is expected to play linebacker after being switched over from safety this spring. After two years of learning the scheme, he should be a leader on defense. 

    Kemari Averett 

    Kemari Averett  (USATSI)

    Averett barely played last season because he was considered too a raw talent as a freshman. But tight end Charles Standberry struggled to produce, Louisville put the giant tight end out there for blocking purposes and it worked. Some say his size limits his athletic ability, but Averett doesn’t think so. Additionally, he’s a solid pass catcher, as evidenced by his 22- yard touchdown run down the sideline on 4th and 11 against Boston College. 

    Averett finished the season with six receptions for 63 yards and one touchdown for the Cardinals. Now, with Standberry gone, Averett appears to be the go-to option as far as the tight end position is concerned. He provides a huge mismatch for almost all defenses, as he’s almost too fast for linebackers and too big and strong for defensive backs. 

    C.J. Avery 

    There wasn’t a higher-rated player in last season’s recruiting class for Louisville than safety C.J. Avery. He was ranked as the 7th best safety in the country according to ESPN’s recruiting rankings. Playing behind two high-quality players in Zykiesis Cannon and Chucky Williams, Avery didn’t get the chance to show his true talent. Avery was moved to the “star” position in Peter Sirmon’s defensive scheme, where he was forced to play a role he never played before.  

    Avery has bulked up since arriving on campus, going from 190 pounds to 215. With the talent of a safety and currently the size of a linebacker, he will help the Cards tremendously as he moves into the likely role of full-time starting linebacker. The talented freshman showed flashes of greatness and posted decent numbers for playing out of position. He racked up 22 tackles and one fumble recovery while getting fans excited about his potential in 2018-19. 

    Raptors lose in trade, Popovich wins

    By
    J.T. Clifton
    -
    0
    Kawhi & Demar trade / Illustration courtesy of: (CLNS media)

    The Toronto Raptors traded DeMar DeRozan and a protected, first-round pick to the San Antonio Spurs for Kawhi Leonard and Danny Green. The protected pick is shielded 1-20 and becomes two, second-round picks after one year. There’s several reasons this trade makes no sense for the Raptors. 

    The first reason is DeRozan was loyal to the franchise and was completely caught off guard by the trade. He posted on his Instagram feed, “Be told one thing & the outcome another. Can’t trust ‘em. Ain’t no loyalty in this game. Sell you out quick for a little bit of nothing…” This is a bad look for a franchise that already has a hard time attracting big time free agents. DeRozan was reportedly told he was not getting traded during the summer by the Raptors’ front office.  

    Another reason the Raptors are losing in the deal is Kawhi seems like a rental player for one year. He’s already said he has no interest in playing in Toronto and Toronto doesn’t have the firepower to beat the Warriors or maybe even a full-strength Celtics team. So, they’ve lost their best player in DeRozan and a first round pick to potentially be in the Conference Finals or lose to the Warriors or Rockets in the Finals. 

    If the Raptors wanted to get rid of DeRozan’s contract, they should have traded for a player who wanted to be there or received a few draft picks in return. If you want to blow it up, it’s a good time. They could have started a rebuild while LeBron, the Rockets and the Warriors duke it out for championships. Toronto needs to try to win Kawhi over or this will be a complete loss for the Raptors. 

    Kawhi Leonard / (Canadian Press)

    Greg Popovich came out the big winner of the trade. He showed that a superstar is not going to dictate to him where and when he’s going to play. There were lots of questions concerning whether Leonard should have sat out in the playoffs to begin with. With Kawhi playing hardball stating the Lakers (another Western Conference team) was the only squad he would play for, Popovich stayed strong. He sent him to the Eastern conference for that team’s best player and a first round pick.  

    This could change the way Superstars are handled in the future. NBA teams often cave to the demands of stars, but it may not be that way anymore. Kawhi is a top 5 player when he’s healthy and Popovich essentially told him to “shove it” when it came down to what he wanted. When asked about Leonard, Popovich declined comment and said he’s only moving forward

    Renegotiating the Dodgers’ TV deal: How Spectrum can reach more viewers and make more money

    By
    Jeremy Evans
    -
    0

    Ironically, or maybe un-ironically, Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable, now owned by Charter Communications), is the Los Angeles Dodgers’ exclusive game content distributor via Sports Net LA. Spectrum finds itself in the same position as traditional cable providers before streamers like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu and others arrived; stuck in an old way of thinking, unwilling to change and losing millions of customers along the way. The story is long and has heartbreak for fans as many missed Vin Scully’s last season in the booth and other memories since the deal $8.3 billion deal was signed in 2013. 

    Currently, DirectTV, Spectrum’s competitor, does not provide the channel to its customers after losing the bid to Spectrum’s former namesake to pay to broadcast Dodger games. Dodger fans are still without the diverse viewing capability, while the organization celebrates its 60th year in Los Angeles and 127th overall. What is the solution? 

    It is simple, really; cut out the middle man and go streaming. First, the Dodgers stand to lose nothing as they already have guaranteed money pursuant to their underlying agreement with Spectrum. The Dodgers should be pushing, if they are not already, for all fans to have access (or at least better options) to view all games. 

    Second, Spectrum loses nothing by bringing in other partners. Rhetorically, if Hulu can stream NHL games, YouTube TV can stream LAFC and Seattle Sounders soccer games, Amazon Prime NFL Football (for no charge to Prime customers) and a host of social media platforms including Facebook Live, Snapchat and Twitter, what is preventing Spectrum from doing the same? Spectrum owns the Dodgers broadcast as they purchased it on a 25-year deal. Spectrum increases viewership and potentially more sponsorship dollars by hosting on other platforms. Furthermore, cable subscribers have been decreasing, while viewers are falling in love with content now and everywhere via the streamers. Without change, it is the Dodgers’ “Blue” elephant in the room.  

    Interestingly enough, the streamer Hulu could have played a huge role. Imagine Dodger fans being able to watch all Dodger games on Hulu for $7.99 a month, while cutting their cable cord. However, and this is where it gets confusing, Time Warner Cable, not to be confused with the Time Warner that just sold to AT&T in the $85 billion-approved merger deal, owns a 10% non-voting stake in Hulu. Time Warner Cable was sold to Charter Communications (without the Hulu stake), which also owns Spectrum, the exclusive broadcaster for Dodger games. Comcast and Charter also just entered into a mobile operating platform partnership, while Comcast has its own 30% voting stake in Hulu. 

    Lastly, Comcast just placed a bid for $65 billion to purchase some of Fox’s assets, including its 30% stake in Hulu. Counting that up, there is 70% of Hulu in control of one to two companies that would be primed to broadcast Dodger games as a spectacular get and a first for the Hulu platform. Spectrum would potentially get back the customers it lost to cord-cutting through Hulu. By the way, Spectrum launched Spectrum TV Stream (a smaller version of Hulu) in 2017 and guess what content was missing from it? Dodger broadcasts. There is no word on whether the mobile platform partnership between Comcast and Charter will include Dodger broadcasts, but again a prime opportunity is being wasted without some mobile, streaming, and/or social media options being added for the local fan base/audience. 

    It has been stated before, but the renegotiation or expansion of the current agreement starts and fails (at least for the viewers) in the lack of diversity of distributors and furthermore in the lack of a streamer or streamers beings included. Spectrum gains financially by reaching more viewers and advertisers/sponsors. Although the Dodgers have little to no leverage (having sold the rights in 2013 before streamers were gaining traction into sports), the Dodgers gain in reputation and access by adding a significant portion of the Southern California population by to it viewing audience. 

    Reportedly, the Dodgers have placed pressure on Spectrum to reach more fans. Some deals have made that possible by Charter/Spectrum purchasing smaller cable providers, but not to the extent fans expect or what could be possible via a streamer, mobile, or social media giant. Spectrum cannot solve the Dodgers problem by adding more cable providers. That is the old way of thinking and it has proved itself not to work. Spectrum needs a streaming partner and Hulu might be a great place to start. 

    1...254255256...259Page 255 of 259

    Shows on the SRA Network