Grantland.com (2 Viewers)

[roadkill1292]

I have to admit that I found the RS article pretty typically tinged with soft SJW stuff, which is probably why I generally don't read Grantland's pop culture or socio-political work, nor do I take it that seriously. Especially Pierce and the gang, who never met a leftist trope they weren't afraid to expound upon.

Barnwell, Baker, and Brown are different stories altogether. I read their sports coverage, and think that the people they hired to do it are excellent.

eta* I also thought, for a while, that Katie Baker was the best writer and most astute social commentator that they had at Grantland. She still may be, but I stopped reading Grantland daily, so I'm not sure anymore.

SJW?

Single Jewish Women?

Social Justice Warrior. The kind of stuff that Rolling Stone is really prone to publishing. See, Sabrina Erderly, Matt Taibbi, etc.

Grantland articles about pop culture, movies, and even some of their sports coverage often raise the social concerns coming from the cultural left in many of their articles.

You mean the people who are slowly changing daily life in the U.S.

 

[rockaction]

I have to admit that I found the RS article pretty typically tinged with soft SJW stuff, which is probably why I generally don't read Grantland's pop culture or socio-political work, nor do I take it that seriously. Especially Pierce and the gang, who never met a leftist trope they weren't afraid to expound upon.

Barnwell, Baker, and Brown are different stories altogether. I read their sports coverage, and think that the people they hired to do it are excellent.

eta* I also thought, for a while, that Katie Baker was the best writer and most astute social commentator that they had at Grantland. She still may be, but I stopped reading Grantland daily, so I'm not sure anymore.

SJW?

Single Jewish Women?

Social Justice Warrior. The kind of stuff that Rolling Stone is really prone to publishing. See, Sabrina Erderly, Matt Taibbi, etc.

Grantland articles about pop culture, movies, and even some of their sports coverage often raise the social concerns coming from the cultural left in many of their articles.

You mean the people who are slowly changing daily life in the U.S.

Quite possibly. I don't really want to argue about its merits; it's just why I don't read it. I -- and I can only speak for me -- find the concerns shallow, annoying, trite, and stuck in the '90s. To me, it strikes me as very collegiate, and I don't mean that in a good way. The print world caught up with the academic left of that era, and you've got a boring take on your hands. I heard all of this stuff and the filter through which the world is viewed back in college, and it doesn't interest me anymore. That's simply my opinion, and I don't expect anybody else to think like I do.

I'm not a total grump, though; I think Katie Baker's take on marriage and her scoring of wedding season announcements is the most insightful, refreshing, and accurate view of class, status, gender, media, etc. at that site. There are other gems to be found there, also. Just not on a daily basis, and especially not in the pop culture and Hollywood sections.

 

[Riversco]

I have to admit that I found the RS article pretty typically tinged with soft SJW stuff, which is probably why I generally don't read Grantland's pop culture or socio-political work, nor do I take it that seriously. Especially Pierce and the gang, who never met a leftist trope they weren't afraid to expound upon.

Barnwell, Baker, and Brown are different stories altogether. I read their sports coverage, and think that the people they hired to do it are excellent.

eta* I also thought, for a while, that Katie Baker was the best writer and most astute social commentator that they had at Grantland. She still may be, but I stopped reading Grantland daily, so I'm not sure anymore.

SJW?

Single Jewish Women?

Social Justice Warrior. The kind of stuff that Rolling Stone is really prone to publishing. See, Sabrina Erderly, Matt Taibbi, etc.

Grantland articles about pop culture, movies, and even some of their sports coverage often raise the social concerns coming from the cultural left in many of their articles.

You mean the people who are slowly changing daily life in the U.S.

No, its not that.

Remember how everyone used to make fun of nuns because they kept sticking their nose into everyone else's morality? (The nun scene in the Blues Brothers is an example). The modern take on that is SJWs. If that Blues Brothers scene with the Penguin were made today, it wouldn't be a nun, it would be some SJW berating Jake and Elwood for wasting water, not driving a Prius, and drinking soda.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Matt Taibbi trying to expose the inner workings of high finance and how a small group of people tend to influence and control huge sums of wealth with some legally dubious methods while creating nothing is shallow and annoying?

 

[roadkill1292]

Pierce and Phillips have done outstanding work in pointing out the absurdities of NCAA authoritarianism, for instance. That's God's own work, imo.

It should be pointed out that SI.com, which should know better and has actually done some progressive work on this issue, is also trailing the journalistic field in helping to change the face of big time college sports. Deadspin and SB Nation gave SI a well-deserved earful a couple of months back when Tod Gurley was caught selling autographs.

 

[rockaction]

Matt Taibbi trying to expose the inner workings of high finance and how a small group of people tend to influence and control huge sums of wealth with some legally dubious methods while creating nothing is shallow and annoying?

No, Grantland is shallow and annoying. Taibbi is a delusional rabble-rouser, and has done many more articles than what you've alluded to. A quick search shows him calling respected journalist Megan McArdle "sociopathic" for opposing certain claims made about Obamacare.

So that's a nice effort, but it doesn't fly with me.

 

[Tick]

I have to admit that I found the RS article pretty typically tinged with soft SJW stuff, which is probably why I generally don't read Grantland's pop culture or socio-political work, nor do I take it that seriously. Especially Pierce and the gang, who never met a leftist trope they weren't afraid to expound upon.

Barnwell, Baker, and Brown are different stories altogether. I read their sports coverage, and think that the people they hired to do it are excellent.

eta* I also thought, for a while, that Katie Baker was the best writer and most astute social commentator that they had at Grantland. She still may be, but I stopped reading Grantland daily, so I'm not sure anymore.

SJW?

Single Jewish Women?

Social Justice Warrior. The kind of stuff that Rolling Stone is really prone to publishing. See, Sabrina Erderly, Matt Taibbi, etc.

Grantland articles about pop culture, movies, and even some of their sports coverage often raise the social concerns coming from the cultural left in many of their articles.

Not a common-use acronym.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Matt Taibbi trying to expose the inner workings of high finance and how a small group of people tend to influence and control huge sums of wealth with some legally dubious methods while creating nothing is shallow and annoying?

No, Grantland is shallow and annoying. Taibbi is a delusional rabble-rouser, and has done many more articles than what you've alluded to. A quick search shows him calling respected journalist Megan McArdle "sociopathic" for opposing certain claims made about Obamacare.

So that's a nice effort, but it doesn't fly with me.

What about his attempts to expose the inner workings of high finance and how a small group of people tend to influence and control huge sums of wealth with some legally dubious methods? Does that fly with you?

 

[No. 16]

As long as Lowe, Goldsbury, and Abrams are still writing NBA articles for Grantland I'll be going to that site.

 

[rockaction]

Matt Taibbi trying to expose the inner workings of high finance and how a small group of people tend to influence and control huge sums of wealth with some legally dubious methods while creating nothing is shallow and annoying?

No, Grantland is shallow and annoying. Taibbi is a delusional rabble-rouser, and has done many more articles than what you've alluded to. A quick search shows him calling respected journalist Megan McArdle "sociopathic" for opposing certain claims made about Obamacare.

So that's a nice effort, but it doesn't fly with me.

What about his attempts to expose the inner workings of high finance and how a small group of people tend to influence and control huge sums of wealth with some legally dubious methods? Does that fly with you?

Sure, to the extent his factual reporting is correct with respect to that particular issue. The characterization of his work as coming from anywhere but as an advocacy journalist is probably a steeper hill to climb.

And Long Ball Larry's characterization of my argument is what didn't fly.

 

[Jack White]

I have to admit that I found the RS article pretty typically tinged with soft SJW stuff, which is probably why I generally don't read Grantland's pop culture or socio-political work, nor do I take it that seriously. Especially Pierce and the gang, who never met a leftist trope they weren't afraid to expound upon.

Barnwell, Baker, and Brown are different stories altogether. I read their sports coverage, and think that the people they hired to do it are excellent.

eta* I also thought, for a while, that Katie Baker was the best writer and most astute social commentator that they had at Grantland. She still may be, but I stopped reading Grantland daily, so I'm not sure anymore.

SJW?

Single Jewish Women?

Social Justice Warrior. The kind of stuff that Rolling Stone is really prone to publishing. See, Sabrina Erderly, Matt Taibbi, etc.

Grantland articles about pop culture, movies, and even some of their sports coverage often raise the social concerns coming from the cultural left in many of their articles.

Not a common-use acronym.

This board is littered with non-common-use acronyms.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

NCUAVC, IMO, WOAD.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I have to admit that I found the RS article pretty typically tinged with soft SJW stuff, which is probably why I generally don't read Grantland's pop culture or socio-political work, nor do I take it that seriously. Especially Pierce and the gang, who never met a leftist trope they weren't afraid to expound upon.

Barnwell, Baker, and Brown are different stories altogether. I read their sports coverage, and think that the people they hired to do it are excellent.

eta* I also thought, for a while, that Katie Baker was the best writer and most astute social commentator that they had at Grantland. She still may be, but I stopped reading Grantland daily, so I'm not sure anymore.

SJW?

Single Jewish Women?

Social Justice Warrior. The kind of stuff that Rolling Stone is really prone to publishing. See, Sabrina Erderly, Matt Taibbi, etc.

Grantland articles about pop culture, movies, and even some of their sports coverage often raise the social concerns coming from the cultural left in many of their articles.

You mean the people who are slowly changing daily life in the U.S.

Quite possibly. I don't really want to argue about its merits; it's just why I don't read it. I -- and I can only speak for me -- find the concerns shallow, annoying, trite, and stuck in the '90s. To me, it strikes me as very collegiate, and I don't mean that in a good way. The print world caught up with the academic left of that era, and you've got a boring take on your hands. I heard all of this stuff and the filter through which the world is viewed back in college, and it doesn't interest me anymore. That's simply my opinion, and I don't expect anybody else to think like I do.

I'm not a total grump, though; I think Katie Baker's take on marriage and her scoring of wedding season announcements is the most insightful, refreshing, and accurate view of class, status, gender, media, etc. at that site. There are other gems to be found there, also. Just not on a daily basis, and especially not in the pop culture and Hollywood sections.

My God. I can't tell if you are serious, or are a 17 year-old on acid who is randomly reading a thesaurus, or fishing. Doesn't matter, in any case.

This may be the most pretentious post since MY last - and that's saying something. Bravo, sir or madam: you have me in awe.

 

[PatsWillWin]

All I want is the Cousin Sal NFL podcasts.

 

[mphtrilogy]

All I want is the Cousin Sal NFL podcasts.

Agreed

 

[John Bender]

All I want is the Cousin Sal NFL podcasts.

Exactly.

Those and the HBob NBA podcasts. I don't even watch the NBA but those pods keep me up on all I need to be.

 

[freeannyong]

Next Grantland BB Hour is cancelled. They claim it was that way before the Simmons news but not sure I believe them.

 

[Jack White]

Good chance Simmons gets the rest of his money but never works another day for ESPN.

 

[Capella]

Next Grantland BB Hour is cancelled. They claim it was that way before the Simmons news but not sure I believe them.

Yea that was obviously intentional. The PR spin was hysterical.

 

[randall146]

I have to admit that I found the RS article pretty typically tinged with soft SJW stuff, which is probably why I generally don't read Grantland's pop culture or socio-political work, nor do I take it that seriously. Especially Pierce and the gang, who never met a leftist trope they weren't afraid to expound upon.

Barnwell, Baker, and Brown are different stories altogether. I read their sports coverage, and think that the people they hired to do it are excellent.

eta* I also thought, for a while, that Katie Baker was the best writer and most astute social commentator that they had at Grantland. She still may be, but I stopped reading Grantland daily, so I'm not sure anymore.

SJW?

Single Jewish Women?

Social Justice Warrior. The kind of stuff that Rolling Stone is really prone to publishing. See, Sabrina Erderly, Matt Taibbi, etc.

Grantland articles about pop culture, movies, and even some of their sports coverage often raise the social concerns coming from the cultural left in many of their articles.

Not a common-use acronym.

This board is littered with non-common-use acronyms.

NCUA's

 

[Sammy3469]

Next Grantland BB Hour is cancelled. They claim it was that way before the Simmons news but not sure I believe them.

I wonder if they'll upload the rest of the Summer Movie previews. As much as I don't like Morris's writing, he's much better talking in either podcasts or in these things (I find Connelly the same as well).

 

[wildbill]

Does anyone else find it interesting that Simmons is pretty much fired the same time it's announced his biggest target, Goodell, is about to punish one of his favorite teams? I disagree with a lot of what Simmons has said about Goodell, and I don't blame his bosses for cutting ties with someone who regularly thumbs his nose at them, but I still find it interesting.

If/when Goodell suspends Brady we have to expect some kind of comment from Simmons, right? ESPN can keep him off grantland and his podcast, but can they keep him off Twitter or Dan Patrick or Carolla's podcast?

 

[roadkill1292]

That reminds me, what exactly did he say about Goodell's handling of Deflategate on the Patrick Show? Is he mad that the Pats were going to get their peepees whacked? Who else remembers that old Cheech and Chong routine?

 

[RUSF18]

That reminds me, what exactly did he say about Goodell's handling of Deflategate on the Patrick Show? Is he mad that the Pats were going to get their peepees whacked? Who else remembers that old Cheech and Chong routine?

His issue was with Goodell not coming out with discipline for Brady immediately, and using public reaction to the Wells report to gauge what would be appropriate. Hence him saying he had no balls to do it on his own.

 

[roadkill1292]

That reminds me, what exactly did he say about Goodell's handling of Deflategate on the Patrick Show? Is he mad that the Pats were going to get their peepees whacked? Who else remembers that old Cheech and Chong routine?

His issue was with Goodell not coming out with discipline for Brady immediately, and using public reaction to the Wells report to gauge what would be appropriate. Hence him saying he had no balls to do it on his own.

Thanks.

Let me take this brief opportunity to wish all of our Pats friends on this board a vigorous and heartfelt "Eff you!" before getting back on topic.

 

[Apple Jack]

rockaction very close to becoming a verb.

second abe's suggestion of hbo as his next stop.

 

[Sinn Fein]

rockaction very close to becoming a verb.

second abe's suggestion of hbo as his next stop.

HBO is not a bad call, but he seems to be what Netflix may want - original content for documentaries, a potential weekly series, an in-road into the sports world. I have to think that someone at Netflix has thought about how to get into live streaming events - sports or entertainment.

 

[Eephus]

rockaction very close to becoming a verb.

second abe's suggestion of hbo as his next stop.

HBO is not a bad call, but he seems to be what Netflix may want - original content for documentaries, a potential weekly series, an in-road into the sports world. I have to think that someone at Netflix has thought about how to get into live streaming events - sports or entertainment.

Neither of these would offer an established outlet for his writing. He is still predominantly a writer but may not have the time or attention span to commit to another book. For all his faults as a writer, he's much better at it than as an on-screen personality.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

HBO is Time Warner, so if Simmons goes the HBO route, he would also be under the umbrella of TNT's parent company. He could negotiate a deal to also appear on Inside The NBA and the March Madness studio shows produced by Warner. Could also produce Web content for SI.com or even CNN.com if he felt like working that hard.

 

[culdeus]

Clearly his next avenue is Turner. He can lob bombs at NFL all he wants from there.

 

[Sammy3469]

HBO is Time Warner, so if Simmons goes the HBO route, he would also be under the umbrella of TNT's parent company. He could negotiate a deal to also appear on Inside The NBA and the March Madness studio shows produced by Warner. Could also produce Web content for SI.com or even CNN.com if he felt like working that hard.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Netflix, Amazon (Wash Post/Slate), or even Google/Apple would throw some serious money at him to setup a real-time sports/media streaming site. Donnie Duetsch (of all people) had an interesting point that at some time in the near future, one of these "streamers" will throw some absurd money at a sports league to stream something (his example was Thursday night football). That's the way it's going, and having a sports/media site up and running to support that bid would seem to make some sense.

 

[Sinn Fein]

HBO is Time Warner, so if Simmons goes the HBO route, he would also be under the umbrella of TNT's parent company. He could negotiate a deal to also appear on Inside The NBA and the March Madness studio shows produced by Warner. Could also produce Web content for SI.com or even CNN.com if he felt like working that hard.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Netflix, Amazon (Wash Post/Slate), or even Google/Apple would throw some serious money at him to setup a real-time sports/media streaming site. Donnie Duetsch (of all people) had an interesting point that at some time in the near future, one of these "streamers" will throw some absurd money at a sports league to stream something (his example was Thursday night football). That's the way it's going, and having a sports/media site up and running to support that bid would seem to make some sense.

rockaction very close to becoming a verb.

second abe's suggestion of hbo as his next stop.

HBO is not a bad call, but he seems to be what Netflix may want - original content for documentaries, a potential weekly series, an in-road into the sports world. I have to think that someone at Netflix has thought about how to get into live streaming events - sports or entertainment.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

HBO is Time Warner, so if Simmons goes the HBO route, he would also be under the umbrella of TNT's parent company. He could negotiate a deal to also appear on Inside The NBA and the March Madness studio shows produced by Warner. Could also produce Web content for SI.com or even CNN.com if he felt like working that hard.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Netflix, Amazon (Wash Post/Slate), or even Google/Apple would throw some serious money at him to setup a real-time sports/media streaming site. Donnie Duetsch (of all people) had an interesting point that at some time in the near future, one of these "streamers" will throw some absurd money at a sports league to stream something (his example was Thursday night football). That's the way it's going, and having a sports/media site up and running to support that bid would seem to make some sense.

Fascinating.

I don't know enough about high-speed Internet infrastructure to know what sort of audience is out there to support such a plan or how it could be reliably delivered, but as I type this sentence I realize this is all a matter of "when", not "if".

 

[freeannyong]

rockaction very close to becoming a verb.

second abe's suggestion of hbo as his next stop.

HBO is not a bad call, but he seems to be what Netflix may want - original content for documentaries, a potential weekly series, an in-road into the sports world. I have to think that someone at Netflix has thought about how to get into live streaming events - sports or entertainment.

Neither of these would offer an established outlet for his writing. He is still predominantly a writer but may not have the time or attention span to commit to another book. For all his faults as a writer, he's much better at it than as an on-screen personality.

He does his best to avoid writing at all the past few years. And when he does write it's 75% stuff he has said in podcasts already. I think Netflix would be right where he wants to be.

 

[culdeus]

He could do well to do a John Oliver type show with sportsyness.

 

[Sinn Fein]

HBO is Time Warner, so if Simmons goes the HBO route, he would also be under the umbrella of TNT's parent company. He could negotiate a deal to also appear on Inside The NBA and the March Madness studio shows produced by Warner. Could also produce Web content for SI.com or even CNN.com if he felt like working that hard.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Netflix, Amazon (Wash Post/Slate), or even Google/Apple would throw some serious money at him to setup a real-time sports/media streaming site. Donnie Duetsch (of all people) had an interesting point that at some time in the near future, one of these "streamers" will throw some absurd money at a sports league to stream something (his example was Thursday night football). That's the way it's going, and having a sports/media site up and running to support that bid would seem to make some sense.

Fascinating.

I don't know enough about high-speed Internet infrastructure to know what sort of audience is out there to support such a plan or how it could be reliably delivered, but as I type this sentence I realize this is all a matter of "when", not "if".

I stream live Premier League soccer matches on NBC sports live streaming app - great coverage, in HD. Can stream anywhere - Mac/Ipad/AppleTV

The only issue that has to be sorted is scalability - I imagine the streaming audience for a given match is relatively small. Once you get into something else - you have to make sure the delivery scales to larger audiences.

Streaming is the future of content delivery - its not an "if", but a "when".

 

[coyote5]

He could do well to do a John Oliver type show with sportsyness.

Not. a. chance. in. hell. He doesn't have the charisma to hold a show together. He's not a "in front of the camera" guy, as much as he'd like that to be the case.

 

[Eephus]

HBO is Time Warner, so if Simmons goes the HBO route, he would also be under the umbrella of TNT's parent company. He could negotiate a deal to also appear on Inside The NBA and the March Madness studio shows produced by Warner. Could also produce Web content for SI.com or even CNN.com if he felt like working that hard.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Netflix, Amazon (Wash Post/Slate), or even Google/Apple would throw some serious money at him to setup a real-time sports/media streaming site. Donnie Duetsch (of all people) had an interesting point that at some time in the near future, one of these "streamers" will throw some absurd money at a sports league to stream something (his example was Thursday night football). That's the way it's going, and having a sports/media site up and running to support that bid would seem to make some sense.

Fascinating.

I don't know enough about high-speed Internet infrastructure to know what sort of audience is out there to support such a plan or how it could be reliably delivered, but as I type this sentence I realize this is all a matter of "when", not "if".

I stream live Premier League soccer matches on NBC sports live streaming app - great coverage, in HD. Can stream anywhere - Mac/Ipad/AppleTV

The only issue that has to be sorted is scalability - I imagine the streaming audience for a given match is relatively small. Once you get into something else - you have to make sure the delivery scales to larger audiences.

Streaming is the future of content delivery - its not an "if", but a "when".

Advertising is both an obstacle and opportunity to moving from cable/OTA to streaming. The opportunity is audience targeting which is common on the web but not used as far as I can tell for streaming video. Streaming sports broadcasts in particular seem to have a lot of network promos and repeats of the same small set of commercials. The obstacle is getting advertisers to pay near-market rates to advertise online vs traditional broadcast media. The audience numbers aren't there yet but they'd need to be if an online-only company is going to make a competitive bid for rights for major sporting events.

Simmons' $3M-$5M deal is chicken feed compared to the hundreds of millions needed to secure the rights for live sports.

 

[Brony]

He could do well to do a John Oliver type show with sportsyness.

Not. a. chance. in. hell. He doesn't have the charisma to hold a show together. He's not a "in front of the camera" guy, as much as he'd like that to be the case.

Totally agree with this.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

HBO is Time Warner, so if Simmons goes the HBO route, he would also be under the umbrella of TNT's parent company. He could negotiate a deal to also appear on Inside The NBA and the March Madness studio shows produced by Warner. Could also produce Web content for SI.com or even CNN.com if he felt like working that hard.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Netflix, Amazon (Wash Post/Slate), or even Google/Apple would throw some serious money at him to setup a real-time sports/media streaming site. Donnie Duetsch (of all people) had an interesting point that at some time in the near future, one of these "streamers" will throw some absurd money at a sports league to stream something (his example was Thursday night football). That's the way it's going, and having a sports/media site up and running to support that bid would seem to make some sense.

Fascinating.

I don't know enough about high-speed Internet infrastructure to know what sort of audience is out there to support such a plan or how it could be reliably delivered, but as I type this sentence I realize this is all a matter of "when", not "if".

I stream live Premier League soccer matches on NBC sports live streaming app - great coverage, in HD. Can stream anywhere - Mac/Ipad/AppleTV

The only issue that has to be sorted is scalability - I imagine the streaming audience for a given match is relatively small. Once you get into something else - you have to make sure the delivery scales to larger audiences.

Streaming is the future of content delivery - its not an "if", but a "when".

Advertising is both an obstacle and opportunity to moving from cable/OTA to streaming. The opportunity is audience targeting which is common on the web but not used as far as I can tell for streaming video. Streaming sports broadcasts in particular seem to have a lot of network promos and repeats of the same small set of commercials. The obstacle is getting advertisers to pay near-market rates to advertise online vs traditional broadcast media. The audience numbers aren't there yet but they'd need to be if an online-only company is going to make a competitive bid for rights for major sporting events.

Simmons' $3M-$5M deal is chicken feed compared to the hundreds of millions needed to secure the rights for live sports.

What if Google could integrate something like AdWords into video streaming so that they can show different ads to different people and be more targeted? Has something like this already happened somewhere? It feels vaguely familiar.

 

[Sammy3469]

HBO is Time Warner, so if Simmons goes the HBO route, he would also be under the umbrella of TNT's parent company. He could negotiate a deal to also appear on Inside The NBA and the March Madness studio shows produced by Warner. Could also produce Web content for SI.com or even CNN.com if he felt like working that hard.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Netflix, Amazon (Wash Post/Slate), or even Google/Apple would throw some serious money at him to setup a real-time sports/media streaming site. Donnie Duetsch (of all people) had an interesting point that at some time in the near future, one of these "streamers" will throw some absurd money at a sports league to stream something (his example was Thursday night football). That's the way it's going, and having a sports/media site up and running to support that bid would seem to make some sense.

Fascinating.

I don't know enough about high-speed Internet infrastructure to know what sort of audience is out there to support such a plan or how it could be reliably delivered, but as I type this sentence I realize this is all a matter of "when", not "if".

I stream live Premier League soccer matches on NBC sports live streaming app - great coverage, in HD. Can stream anywhere - Mac/Ipad/AppleTV

The only issue that has to be sorted is scalability - I imagine the streaming audience for a given match is relatively small. Once you get into something else - you have to make sure the delivery scales to larger audiences.

Streaming is the future of content delivery - its not an "if", but a "when".

Advertising is both an obstacle and opportunity to moving from cable/OTA to streaming. The opportunity is audience targeting which is common on the web but not used as far as I can tell for streaming video. Streaming sports broadcasts in particular seem to have a lot of network promos and repeats of the same small set of commercials. The obstacle is getting advertisers to pay near-market rates to advertise online vs traditional broadcast media. The audience numbers aren't there yet but they'd need to be if an online-only company is going to make a competitive bid for rights for major sporting events.

Simmons' $3M-$5M deal is chicken feed compared to the hundreds of millions needed to secure the rights for live sports.

I have no idea how close it is, but I'd have to think someone like Google who knows everything about you anyway could run targeted ads and make it work (I have friends that produce targeted interactive content for bank websites, so it can't be that hard). It may be a few years off, but I do think one of them will try it. I also don't think the bandwidth is that big of a deal. The WWE streamed WrestleMania as it's only outlet, so I'm sure Google could stream an NFL game if they wanted.

I also think this is a generational thing as every study I've seen lately shows anyone under 30 giving up cable in droves. Whether it's to people using Netflix or Roku or Sling, etc...they are leaving cable. Coincidentally those are the viewers advertisers want. So it's more a question of sooner or later and I'd bet on the sooner with the way things have gone the past year.

I mean Verizon basically declared open war on ESPN with their new streaming offering. I'm sure others will follow suit soon.

This all ties back into Simmons in a neat way since for all his love of media "past" (Letterman, TV shows, etc.), he more than anyone else isn't afraid to at least test the boundaries of where all this is headed. That's why one of these Internet sites may make some sense. Conversely, the Time Warner monolith is the one old school media company that seems to get "it' as well. They've uniformly put themselves and their channels on the streaming services (one of the few to do so), stream sports games for the NBA, are willing to incorporate new web distribution channels (HBOtoGo anyone?). So while they are "traditional", they're also the old-school media company that would "get" Simmons vision.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Honestly, Netflix spent like $100 million to produce House of Cards alone.

For what they spend on producing their own content now, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that they could pony up for some sports contract, which would presumably grow their user base. Though I don't know how all the contracts and rights currently stand with all of the existing streaming options.

 

[Sinn Fein]

HBO is Time Warner, so if Simmons goes the HBO route, he would also be under the umbrella of TNT's parent company. He could negotiate a deal to also appear on Inside The NBA and the March Madness studio shows produced by Warner. Could also produce Web content for SI.com or even CNN.com if he felt like working that hard.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Netflix, Amazon (Wash Post/Slate), or even Google/Apple would throw some serious money at him to setup a real-time sports/media streaming site. Donnie Duetsch (of all people) had an interesting point that at some time in the near future, one of these "streamers" will throw some absurd money at a sports league to stream something (his example was Thursday night football). That's the way it's going, and having a sports/media site up and running to support that bid would seem to make some sense.

Fascinating.

I don't know enough about high-speed Internet infrastructure to know what sort of audience is out there to support such a plan or how it could be reliably delivered, but as I type this sentence I realize this is all a matter of "when", not "if".

I stream live Premier League soccer matches on NBC sports live streaming app - great coverage, in HD. Can stream anywhere - Mac/Ipad/AppleTV

The only issue that has to be sorted is scalability - I imagine the streaming audience for a given match is relatively small. Once you get into something else - you have to make sure the delivery scales to larger audiences.

Streaming is the future of content delivery - its not an "if", but a "when".

Advertising is both an obstacle and opportunity to moving from cable/OTA to streaming. The opportunity is audience targeting which is common on the web but not used as far as I can tell for streaming video. Streaming sports broadcasts in particular seem to have a lot of network promos and repeats of the same small set of commercials. The obstacle is getting advertisers to pay near-market rates to advertise online vs traditional broadcast media. The audience numbers aren't there yet but they'd need to be if an online-only company is going to make a competitive bid for rights for major sporting events.

Simmons' $3M-$5M deal is chicken feed compared to the hundreds of millions needed to secure the rights for live sports.

Streaming is a combination of advertising and PPV.

We see HBO going it alone now with their new streaming App. I think it is likely you see Netflix offer another tier of pricing - "live" tier to get regularly scheduled sports/entertainment (concerts and the like). For the Sports properties, they obviously have to worry about diluting existing TV contracts - and turn this into additional revenue and not replacement revenue. But, it does not have to be hundreds of millions - at least until a subscriber base makes that financially worthwhile.

 

[Eephus]

HBO is Time Warner, so if Simmons goes the HBO route, he would also be under the umbrella of TNT's parent company. He could negotiate a deal to also appear on Inside The NBA and the March Madness studio shows produced by Warner. Could also produce Web content for SI.com or even CNN.com if he felt like working that hard.

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Netflix, Amazon (Wash Post/Slate), or even Google/Apple would throw some serious money at him to setup a real-time sports/media streaming site. Donnie Duetsch (of all people) had an interesting point that at some time in the near future, one of these "streamers" will throw some absurd money at a sports league to stream something (his example was Thursday night football). That's the way it's going, and having a sports/media site up and running to support that bid would seem to make some sense.

Fascinating.

I don't know enough about high-speed Internet infrastructure to know what sort of audience is out there to support such a plan or how it could be reliably delivered, but as I type this sentence I realize this is all a matter of "when", not "if".

I stream live Premier League soccer matches on NBC sports live streaming app - great coverage, in HD. Can stream anywhere - Mac/Ipad/AppleTV

The only issue that has to be sorted is scalability - I imagine the streaming audience for a given match is relatively small. Once you get into something else - you have to make sure the delivery scales to larger audiences.

Streaming is the future of content delivery - its not an "if", but a "when".

Advertising is both an obstacle and opportunity to moving from cable/OTA to streaming. The opportunity is audience targeting which is common on the web but not used as far as I can tell for streaming video. Streaming sports broadcasts in particular seem to have a lot of network promos and repeats of the same small set of commercials. The obstacle is getting advertisers to pay near-market rates to advertise online vs traditional broadcast media. The audience numbers aren't there yet but they'd need to be if an online-only company is going to make a competitive bid for rights for major sporting events.

Simmons' $3M-$5M deal is chicken feed compared to the hundreds of millions needed to secure the rights for live sports.

Streaming is a combination of advertising and PPV.

We see HBO going it alone now with their new streaming App. I think it is likely you see Netflix offer another tier of pricing - "live" tier to get regularly scheduled sports/entertainment (concerts and the like). For the Sports properties, they obviously have to worry about diluting existing TV contracts - and turn this into additional revenue and not replacement revenue. But, it does not have to be hundreds of millions - at least until a subscriber base makes that financially worthwhile.

It's kind of a chicken and egg situation though. A fledgling streaming sports provider has to have enough content to entice subscribers. Even established giants like Fox Sports 1 and NBCSN have struggled to assemble an attractive portfolio. This becomes more critical when viewers get to make a monthly decision about whether to pay for a service or not.

A streaming only provider will have one advantage over a broadcast channel in that they don't have to fight for limited cable carriage.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I think Google or Apple are massive longshots. I think it takes some momentum to get off the ground in terms of housing and managing content providers, not just streaming them, and they just aren't there yet. Nor do I think it's a big area for either, they both have much bigger fish to try in terms of opportunities.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

I think Google or Apple are massive longshots. I think it takes some momentum to get off the ground in terms of housing and managing content providers, not just streaming them, and they just aren't there yet. Nor do I think it's a big area for either, they both have much bigger fish to try in terms of opportunities.

Just thinking out loud here as a lot of this is new to me... TV networks rarely make short-term money on sports rights. They are willing to overpay for live sports to draw large amounts of advertiser-friendly eyeballs to their network(s), hope to retain them for other programming, and make it all back in volume. For a streamer, I suppose they would have to be able to boost new subscription numbers high enough and/or raise subscription rates high enough to justify the price tag. There presumably wouldn't be much of a residual value on that sporting event, either: the appeal of large library of archived sporting events as limited as, say, ESPN Classic's ratings.When Netflix spends a Brinks truck full of money on House Of Cards, the lifespan of that investment turning into money is much broader. They're good shows so people want to watch them, would choose Netflix over another streamer like Amazon Prime because of the exclusivity, recurring revenue potential from the shows' rewstchability, and could still land new customers years after release from folks who were late to cut the cord and are curious about these Web-only shows they've heard so much about.

that had better be a damn big sports audience to buy that show over developing several pieces of relatively evergreen content for the same money.

 

[Eephus]

It's an interesting discussion but I sure hope Bill Simmons isn't the pivotal figure in the future of global media

 

[Sammy3469]

It's an interesting discussion but I sure hope Bill Simmons isn't the pivotal figure in the future of global media

He's not pivotal, but I do think he recognizes these trends and is more apt to at least listen to a pitch like that if it is going to be made. ESPN was wedded to their ways and frankly needs the status quo to stay in place for at least the foreseeable future to make all their media rights packages be what they paid for them. That's why they're really not seeing eye to eye.

 

[Eephus]

It's an interesting discussion but I sure hope Bill Simmons isn't the pivotal figure in the future of global media

He's not pivotal, but I do think he recognizes these trends and is more apt to at least listen to a pitch like that if it is going to be made. ESPN was wedded to their ways and frankly needs the status quo to stay in place for at least the foreseeable future to make all their media rights packages be what they paid for them. That's why they're really not seeing eye to eye.

Well, Simmons understands this better than Chris Berman and **** Vitale but I'm sure there's a bunch of people in Bristol trying to figure out better ways to monetize their content.

 

[Sammy3469]

It's an interesting discussion but I sure hope Bill Simmons isn't the pivotal figure in the future of global media

He's not pivotal, but I do think he recognizes these trends and is more apt to at least listen to a pitch like that if it is going to be made. ESPN was wedded to their ways and frankly needs the status quo to stay in place for at least the foreseeable future to make all their media rights packages be what they paid for them. That's why they're really not seeing eye to eye.

Well, Simmons understands this better than Chris Berman and **** Vitale but I'm sure there's a bunch of people in Bristol trying to figure out better ways to monetize their content.

I'm more talking about they're tied to cable distribution and the bundling of services. If that ever cracks, they may be in real trouble (which is why they are suing Verizon). Their entire cost structure is built on those 6-7 dollar fees per cable subscriber. They've tied themselves to that distribution avenue until at least their current NFL and NBA deals are over.