[OutsiderFan]

I guess the big question is if sports programming is going back to broadcast networks, and broadcast is free for the consumer, where exactly are the broadcasters going to make up the money they lose by not being able to charge high rights fees for cable?  I mean in that scenario, the cable companies kept pushing subscription fees, and now they are facing cord cutting as a result.  The only place that money would be made up is in the form of higher advertising rates and higher prices on the products and services pitched by advertisers and sponsors of the properties being broadcast.

This is an important question, because league revenues (and player salaries) have seemed to be on a perpetually upward trend.  The NFL has said it wants to double it's revenues from a few years ago.  How can revenues keep going up when the cable TV model seemed to be such a significant player in the forces driving up revenues and salaries?

I've believed this for a long time:  Eventually the day is going to come when the big three sports see their revenues start to decline, and so too will player salaries. Because everything that goes up, must come down. What will be fascinating is to see what happens when the leagues and teams can't cover the obligations they have on contracts that were signed before revenues started declining. 

[OutsiderFan]

I guess the big question is if sports programming is going back to broadcast networks, and broadcast is free for the consumer, where exactly are the broadcasters going to make up the money they lose by not being able to charge high rights fees for cable?  I mean in that scenario, the cable companies kept pushing subscription fees, and now they are facing cord cutting as a result.  The only place that money would be made up is in the form of higher advertising rates and higher prices on the products and services pitched by advertisers and sponsors of the properties being broadcast.

This is an important question, because league revenues (and player salaries) have seemed to be on a perpetually upward trend.  The NFL has said it wants to double it's revenues from a few years ago.  How can revenues keep going up when the cable TV model seemed to be such a significant player in the forces driving up revenues and salaries?

I've believed this for a long time:  Eventually the day is going to come when the big three sports see their revenues start to decline, and so too will player salaries. Because everything that goes up, must come down. What will be fascinating is to see what happens when the leagues and teams can't cover the obligations they have on contracts that were signed before revenues started declining. 

[stupac2]

Well, there's a lot of moving pieces. ESPN wants the content on ESPN so they can charge high carriage fees, but those high fees contribute to high bills, which cause people to cut cable, which means fewer people watch, which means worse ratings and less ad money. The content on ESPN surely give ESPN higher ratings than they'd get without it, but so far the signs are that it's not good enough.

I think it's also short-sighted, because gating this stuff off risks closing the casual->hardcore pipeline that drives the rest of their revenue. If the only people who see the Rose Bowl are people committed to watching the Rose Bowl, you're necessarily getting fewer eyeballs and converting fewer fans.

The problem, of course, is that what's good for sports as a whole isn't necessarily what's good for ESPN. As a fan who is probably never going to pay for cable again, I hope more programming moves to OTA. Both because I could see more, and because I think having ESPN be both the main source for sports news AND one of the main sources for sporting events is a bad, bad combination. Of course, my instinct is that Disney will let that happen over their cold, dead body, but we'll see. The next decade will be interesting.

[stupac2]

Well, there's a lot of moving pieces. ESPN wants the content on ESPN so they can charge high carriage fees, but those high fees contribute to high bills, which cause people to cut cable, which means fewer people watch, which means worse ratings and less ad money. The content on ESPN surely give ESPN higher ratings than they'd get without it, but so far the signs are that it's not good enough.

I think it's also short-sighted, because gating this stuff off risks closing the casual->hardcore pipeline that drives the rest of their revenue. If the only people who see the Rose Bowl are people committed to watching the Rose Bowl, you're necessarily getting fewer eyeballs and converting fewer fans.

The problem, of course, is that what's good for sports as a whole isn't necessarily what's good for ESPN. As a fan who is probably never going to pay for cable again, I hope more programming moves to OTA. Both because I could see more, and because I think having ESPN be both the main source for sports news AND one of the main sources for sporting events is a bad, bad combination. Of course, my instinct is that Disney will let that happen over their cold, dead body, but we'll see. The next decade will be interesting.

[Leftcoast]

Boxing is a great example of the casual/hardcore issue Stupac raises. 

Boxing was H.UGE in the 70s/80s.  Sugar Ray Leonard, Muhammed Ali, George Foreman, Roberto Duran were water cooler topics.  When pay per view raised revenue but cordoned off the casual fan boxing gradually became a marginal sport.  Revenues for promoters and the very top level boxers skyrocketed while the sport overall withered and competitors were given space to grow. I have no idea who the heavyweight champion is - unthinkable 30 years ago.

Revenue eventually follows the decline in interest, of course; last year's Merryweather fight may prove to be boxing's last stratospheric payday.  I don't weep for boxing but its demise is a good example of how short term thinking dominates decision making while restricting access can damage the long term health of sports.

[Leftcoast]

Boxing is a great example of the casual/hardcore issue Stupac raises. 

Boxing was H.UGE in the 70s/80s.  Sugar Ray Leonard, Muhammed Ali, George Foreman, Roberto Duran were water cooler topics.  When pay per view raised revenue but cordoned off the casual fan boxing gradually became a marginal sport.  Revenues for promoters and the very top level boxers skyrocketed while the sport overall withered and competitors were given space to grow. I have no idea who the heavyweight champion is - unthinkable 30 years ago.

Revenue eventually follows the decline in interest, of course; last year's Merryweather fight may prove to be boxing's last stratospheric payday.  I don't weep for boxing but its demise is a good example of how short term thinking dominates decision making while restricting access can damage the long term health of sports.

[Robbie]

Boxing is a great example of the casual/hardcore issue Stupac raises. 

Boxing was HUGE in the 70s/80s.  Sugar Ray Leonard, Muhammed Ali, George Foreman, Roberto Duran were water cooler topics.  When pay per view raised revenue but cordoned off the casual fan boxing gradually became a marginal sport.  Revenues for promoters and the very top level boxers skyrocketed while the sport overall withered and competitors were given space to grow. I have no idea who the heavyweight champion is - unthinkable 30 years ago.

Revenue eventually follows the decline in interest, of course; last year's Merryweather fight may prove to be boxing's last stratospheric pay day.  I don't weep for boxing but its demise is a good example of how short term thinking dominates decision making while restricting access can damage the long term health of sports.

I think this is correct, but also missing two important reasons for boxing's demise.

Boxing is crooked. Because it is a single fighter it is easy for a fight to be fixed. Sufficiently many fights have been fixed that the average fan cannot be certain that any other fight is fair. (I suspect that the loss of interest in tennis also is partially due to the same root cause.)

Further, boxing's brutality makes it difficult to justify as entertainment. Any game where one of the victory conditions is "your opponent suffers a brain injury" is not fan friendly. I cannot watch a match.

I think that MMA will suffer for the same reasons.

[Robbie]

Boxing is a great example of the casual/hardcore issue Stupac raises. 

Boxing was HUGE in the 70s/80s.  Sugar Ray Leonard, Muhammed Ali, George Foreman, Roberto Duran were water cooler topics.  When pay per view raised revenue but cordoned off the casual fan boxing gradually became a marginal sport.  Revenues for promoters and the very top level boxers skyrocketed while the sport overall withered and competitors were given space to grow. I have no idea who the heavyweight champion is - unthinkable 30 years ago.

Revenue eventually follows the decline in interest, of course; last year's Merryweather fight may prove to be boxing's last stratospheric pay day.  I don't weep for boxing but its demise is a good example of how short term thinking dominates decision making while restricting access can damage the long term health of sports.

I think this is correct, but also missing two important reasons for boxing's demise.

Boxing is crooked. Because it is a single fighter it is easy for a fight to be fixed. Sufficiently many fights have been fixed that the average fan cannot be certain that any other fight is fair. (I suspect that the loss of interest in tennis also is partially due to the same root cause.)

Further, boxing's brutality makes it difficult to justify as entertainment. Any game where one of the victory conditions is "your opponent suffers a brain injury" is not fan friendly. I cannot watch a match.

I think that MMA will suffer for the same reasons.

[fullmetal]

I think the short attention span of modern sports fans, coupled with the 24/7 news cycle, has also contributed to boxing's fall.  There are many substitutes for boxing...and also, boxing doesn't guarantee you a satisfying event (of predictable length).  McGregor vs. Aldo -- 13 seconds.  Well, awesome.  Hope it was worth your money.

Also, yes to all of Robbie's post.

[fullmetal]

I think the short attention span of modern sports fans, coupled with the 24/7 news cycle, has also contributed to boxing's fall.  There are many substitutes for boxing...and also, boxing doesn't guarantee you a satisfying event (of predictable length).  McGregor vs. Aldo -- 13 seconds.  Well, awesome.  Hope it was worth your money.

Also, yes to all of Robbie's post.

[CTcard]

Further, boxing's brutality makes it difficult to justify as entertainment. Any game where one of the victory conditions is "your opponent suffers a brain injury" is not fan friendly. I cannot watch a match.

I think that MMA will suffer for the same reasons.

While I rather agree with the sentiment, I think the current popularity of MMA rather blunts the idea that the violence is what killed boxing.
I guess there is another side - I don't think MMA has anywhere near the popularity that boxing had 40 years ago.

[CTcard]

Further, boxing's brutality makes it difficult to justify as entertainment. Any game where one of the victory conditions is "your opponent suffers a brain injury" is not fan friendly. I cannot watch a match.

I think that MMA will suffer for the same reasons.

While I rather agree with the sentiment, I think the current popularity of MMA rather blunts the idea that the violence is what killed boxing.
I guess there is another side - I don't think MMA has anywhere near the popularity that boxing had 40 years ago.

[Mick]

[quote author=Robbie link=topic=14389.msg152809#msg152809 date=1452793176]
Further, boxing's brutality makes it difficult to justify as entertainment. Any game where one of the victory conditions is "your opponent suffers a brain injury" is not fan friendly. I cannot watch a match.

I think that MMA will suffer for the same reasons.

While I rather agree with the sentiment, I think the current popularity of MMA rather blunts the idea that the violence is what killed boxing.
I guess there is another side - I don't think MMA has anywhere near the popularity that boxing had 40 years ago.
[/quote]



Completely agree.  It could possibly be that the fans who were attracted to sheer savagery are responsible for MMA's popularity.  To me, at any rate, they don't look like athletes.  I'd take Ali, Frazier or Tyson over a cage match.  The fans who were attracted to boxing for glamor and athleticism don't attend MMA matches.

[Mick]

[quote author=Robbie link=topic=14389.msg152809#msg152809 date=1452793176]
Further, boxing's brutality makes it difficult to justify as entertainment. Any game where one of the victory conditions is "your opponent suffers a brain injury" is not fan friendly. I cannot watch a match.

I think that MMA will suffer for the same reasons.

While I rather agree with the sentiment, I think the current popularity of MMA rather blunts the idea that the violence is what killed boxing.
I guess there is another side - I don't think MMA has anywhere near the popularity that boxing had 40 years ago.
[/quote]



Completely agree.  It could possibly be that the fans who were attracted to sheer savagery are responsible for MMA's popularity.  To me, at any rate, they don't look like athletes.  I'd take Ali, Frazier or Tyson over a cage match.  The fans who were attracted to boxing for glamor and athleticism don't attend MMA matches.

[Leftcoast]

The older men in my family were boxing fans but not pay per view fans.  I know I watched a lot of boxing in the 70s including primetime title fights with Ken Norton, Joe Louis and Muhammed Ali in the 70s.  Some Sugar Ray Leonard, Duran, Holmes in the 80s.

Remember cable TV wasn't widely available until the 80s so any pay-per-view in the 70s probably happened at local theaters hosting pay only events.  That didn't happen much but it was tried for a couple of fights.

Personally I lost all interest in boxing during the promoter shenanigans (Don King) and multiple sanctioning body/split title era of the 80s.  MMA is of no interest to me. 

[Leftcoast]

The older men in my family were boxing fans but not pay per view fans.  I know I watched a lot of boxing in the 70s including primetime title fights with Ken Norton, Joe Louis and Muhammed Ali in the 70s.  Some Sugar Ray Leonard, Duran, Holmes in the 80s.

Remember cable TV wasn't widely available until the 80s so any pay-per-view in the 70s probably happened at local theaters hosting pay only events.  That didn't happen much but it was tried for a couple of fights.

Personally I lost all interest in boxing during the promoter shenanigans (Don King) and multiple sanctioning body/split title era of the 80s.  MMA is of no interest to me. 

[needle]

Was boxing ever a club sport at Stanford?

http://www.ncbaboxing.org/

Members:
http://www.ncbaboxing.org/#!about/c1fb6

[needle]

Was boxing ever a club sport at Stanford?

http://www.ncbaboxing.org/

Members:
http://www.ncbaboxing.org/#!about/c1fb6

[ColoradoTree]

I think this is correct, but also missing two important reasons for boxing's demise.

Boxing is crooked. Because it is a single fighter it is easy for a fight to be fixed. Sufficiently many fights have been fixed that the average fan cannot be certain that any other fight is fair. (I suspect that the loss of interest in tennis also is partially due to the same root cause.)

Further, boxing's brutality makes it difficult to justify as entertainment. Any game where one of the victory conditions is "your opponent suffers a brain injury" is not fan friendly. I cannot watch a match.

I think that MMA will suffer for the same reasons.

Briefly on the point of tennis's declining interest.  I would say that the lack of successful American men's players since the retirement of Sampras and Agassi is the primary factor, and I think the prize money to be won, especially at the larger tournaments and Grand Slams, means that throwing a match is exceedingly rare on the ATP Tour, and doesn't happen at all when we're talking about the top players.  When you couple that with a sustained era of dominance by Federer (Swiss), Nadal (Spanish), and now Djokovic (Serbian), I would guess it makes it less interesting for the casual American tennis fan.  Tennis greatness is judged by Grand Slams, and I don't think too many tennis fans really expect John Isner, Jack Sock, or Stevie Johnson or Sam Querrey to make much of a dent at the start of each tournament. 

Of course, for the more hardcore tennis fans among us, it's a real treat to realize we're watching a succession of players who are arguably the greatest ever.  I resisted Federer for a long time out of loyalty to Sampras, but eventually had to concede that.  Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time, and it's not debatable.  And Djokovic might be the GOAT by the time it's all said and done.  Poor Andy Murray.  (Poor Andy Roddick, too, for that matter.  He had the misfortune of running up against Federer's prime, most notably in that Wimbledon final that served as Federer's 15th slam where Andy was every bit Roger's match for most of it.  Still one of the best matches I've ever seen.)

With all of that said, and on the topic of the thread, I certainly hope that sports move back to broadcast television, seeing as we just cut the cord and I'm feeling a little adrift.  (We figured that even if I watched every Stanford football game at a sports bar and had snacks and beer there, it would still be less expensive than our cable package for the whole year.  Stanford football was the only truly essential thing we were losing in cutting cable.  We're replacing the rest with Netflix and Amazon Prime on our Roku, over-the-air NFL games on our antenna, and we'll get HBO's standalone streaming service when Game of Thrones comes back for season 6.)

[ColoradoTree]

I think this is correct, but also missing two important reasons for boxing's demise.

Boxing is crooked. Because it is a single fighter it is easy for a fight to be fixed. Sufficiently many fights have been fixed that the average fan cannot be certain that any other fight is fair. (I suspect that the loss of interest in tennis also is partially due to the same root cause.)

Further, boxing's brutality makes it difficult to justify as entertainment. Any game where one of the victory conditions is "your opponent suffers a brain injury" is not fan friendly. I cannot watch a match.

I think that MMA will suffer for the same reasons.

Briefly on the point of tennis's declining interest.  I would say that the lack of successful American men's players since the retirement of Sampras and Agassi is the primary factor, and I think the prize money to be won, especially at the larger tournaments and Grand Slams, means that throwing a match is exceedingly rare on the ATP Tour, and doesn't happen at all when we're talking about the top players.  When you couple that with a sustained era of dominance by Federer (Swiss), Nadal (Spanish), and now Djokovic (Serbian), I would guess it makes it less interesting for the casual American tennis fan.  Tennis greatness is judged by Grand Slams, and I don't think too many tennis fans really expect John Isner, Jack Sock, or Stevie Johnson or Sam Querrey to make much of a dent at the start of each tournament. 

Of course, for the more hardcore tennis fans among us, it's a real treat to realize we're watching a succession of players who are arguably the greatest ever.  I resisted Federer for a long time out of loyalty to Sampras, but eventually had to concede that.  Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time, and it's not debatable.  And Djokovic might be the GOAT by the time it's all said and done.  Poor Andy Murray.  (Poor Andy Roddick, too, for that matter.  He had the misfortune of running up against Federer's prime, most notably in that Wimbledon final that served as Federer's 15th slam where Andy was every bit Roger's match for most of it.  Still one of the best matches I've ever seen.)

With all of that said, and on the topic of the thread, I certainly hope that sports move back to broadcast television, seeing as we just cut the cord and I'm feeling a little adrift.  (We figured that even if I watched every Stanford football game at a sports bar and had snacks and beer there, it would still be less expensive than our cable package for the whole year.  Stanford football was the only truly essential thing we were losing in cutting cable.  We're replacing the rest with Netflix and Amazon Prime on our Roku, over-the-air NFL games on our antenna, and we'll get HBO's standalone streaming service when Game of Thrones comes back for season 6.)

[CornFed]

This cord-cutting thing is crazy!  You expect me to live without the guidance and wisdom of MSNBC and Rachel Maddow?  And what about the insights and intellect of Sean Hannity on Fox?  That sort of stuff isn't going to just appear elsewhere out of thin air!!!!!

[CornFed]

This cord-cutting thing is crazy!  You expect me to live without the guidance and wisdom of MSNBC and Rachel Maddow?  And what about the insights and intellect of Sean Hannity on Fox?  That sort of stuff isn't going to just appear elsewhere out of thin air!!!!!

[ColoradoTree]

This cord-cutting thing is crazy!  You expect me to live without the guidance and wisdom of MSNBC and Rachel Maddow?  And what about the insights and intellect of Sean Hannity on Fox?  That sort of stuff isn't going to just appear elsewhere out of thin air!!!!!

Ha!  As long as you're willing to consume shows like that a day or so later and in the form of clips rather than the whole episode, you can still get much of that on different Roku channels. 

[ColoradoTree]

This cord-cutting thing is crazy!  You expect me to live without the guidance and wisdom of MSNBC and Rachel Maddow?  And what about the insights and intellect of Sean Hannity on Fox?  That sort of stuff isn't going to just appear elsewhere out of thin air!!!!!

Ha!  As long as you're willing to consume shows like that a day or so later and in the form of clips rather than the whole episode, you can still get much of that on different Roku channels. 

[BostonCard]

I'd like to quote Stein's law here: "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

Ever increasing cable television bills could not continue forever.  Eventually people reach a breaking point and start dropping cable, or dropping channels.  Once this happens, ever increasing carrier fees stop.  Once that happens, every increasing payments for live sports stop.  I think we are reaching that point, and a lot of football teams who assumed ever increasing television revenues and ever increasing contracts will be in for a harsh reality.  I suspect the ship has sailed for the Pac-12 Network to be carried by DirectTV, for example, because it and channels like it are worth less now than they were when they were drawn up.

When DVR's and time-shifting shows came into being, cable looked to sports as something that couldn't really be time-shifted, and those properties became more valuable.  But I have a feeling that Netflix (HBO and Amazon are there too) found the solution to time-shifting by allowing binging and streaming.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'd like to quote Stein's law here: "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

Ever increasing cable television bills could not continue forever.  Eventually people reach a breaking point and start dropping cable, or dropping channels.  Once this happens, ever increasing carrier fees stop.  Once that happens, every increasing payments for live sports stop.  I think we are reaching that point, and a lot of football teams who assumed ever increasing television revenues and ever increasing contracts will be in for a harsh reality.  I suspect the ship has sailed for the Pac-12 Network to be carried by DirectTV, for example, because it and channels like it are worth less now than they were when they were drawn up.

When DVR's and time-shifting shows came into being, cable looked to sports as something that couldn't really be time-shifted, and those properties became more valuable.  But I have a feeling that Netflix (HBO and Amazon are there too) found the solution to time-shifting by allowing binging and streaming.

BC

[teejers1]

Tennis has lost the interest of fans because it's all now the Big Serve (and maybe a volley).  Point over.  Dull.

But I do agree with point about the recent stars being greater and greater.  I wish they played with less technically advanced rackets, putting more of a premium on shot-making.

This post is an over-simplification, of course, but I think it hits on root cause of the decline of tennis interest.

[teejers1]

Tennis has lost the interest of fans because it's all now the Big Serve (and maybe a volley).  Point over.  Dull.

But I do agree with point about the recent stars being greater and greater.  I wish they played with less technically advanced rackets, putting more of a premium on shot-making.

This post is an over-simplification, of course, but I think it hits on root cause of the decline of tennis interest.

[fullmetal]

Speaking of tennis, the men's team and kal's men's team will be traveling to Austin to play TCU and Texas in the first weekend of Feb.  Since Texas's former tennis complex (Penick-Allison) was torn down recently to make way for the medical complex construction, the Texas M/W tennis teams have been practicing and playing at the...wait for it...UT Golf Club's indoor tennis facilities.  They're out in Lakeway (Steiner Ranch development).  Heck of a drive (30+ min away from campus without traffic), and also perhaps not the most immediately fan-friendly--I haven't seen bleachers or seating yet.  Might make for a pretty intimate setting though.

But yeah.  The UT golf teams probably play out at their namesake club...and the clubhouse has indoor tennis facilities.  Steiner Ranch is that kind of neighborhood though.

[fullmetal]

Speaking of tennis, the men's team and kal's men's team will be traveling to Austin to play TCU and Texas in the first weekend of Feb.  Since Texas's former tennis complex (Penick-Allison) was torn down recently to make way for the medical complex construction, the Texas M/W tennis teams have been practicing and playing at the...wait for it...UT Golf Club's indoor tennis facilities.  They're out in Lakeway (Steiner Ranch development).  Heck of a drive (30+ min away from campus without traffic), and also perhaps not the most immediately fan-friendly--I haven't seen bleachers or seating yet.  Might make for a pretty intimate setting though.

But yeah.  The UT golf teams probably play out at their namesake club...and the clubhouse has indoor tennis facilities.  Steiner Ranch is that kind of neighborhood though.

[ColoradoTree]

In addition to American men's players receding from the upper reaches of the game, there's also an issue with the top men's players being somewhat less than personally dynamic. For all his greatness, Federer can be robotic. Djokovic is a little more fiery, but not much. Sampras was the greater player, but it was Agassi that drew the eye. I think American tennis fans have always appreciated the fire of McEnroe and Connors, even while we were clutching out pearls at their ungentlemanly behavior. Same goes for a passionate, boyishly likable player like Boris Becker (to provide a non-American example.)

Federer and Djokovic are fine art, and I appreciate them for their greatness and technical brilliance. But I've been a big tennis fan my whole life, and I recognize that some fans might want a little more pizazz from their champions.

Obviously, it's different on the women's side, as Serena Williams continues to carry the flag and has always played with plenty of passion. Ironically, I think that worked against her, as her powerful game served to turn off other fans that long preferred the more well-rounded women's game. And it's also true she doesn't fit the classical tennis phenotype, which absurdly earns her scorn to this day. (This article shows some of that reaction from other top women's players and their coaches: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/spo...l?referer=)

[ColoradoTree]

In addition to American men's players receding from the upper reaches of the game, there's also an issue with the top men's players being somewhat less than personally dynamic. For all his greatness, Federer can be robotic. Djokovic is a little more fiery, but not much. Sampras was the greater player, but it was Agassi that drew the eye. I think American tennis fans have always appreciated the fire of McEnroe and Connors, even while we were clutching out pearls at their ungentlemanly behavior. Same goes for a passionate, boyishly likable player like Boris Becker (to provide a non-American example.)

Federer and Djokovic are fine art, and I appreciate them for their greatness and technical brilliance. But I've been a big tennis fan my whole life, and I recognize that some fans might want a little more pizazz from their champions.

Obviously, it's different on the women's side, as Serena Williams continues to carry the flag and has always played with plenty of passion. Ironically, I think that worked against her, as her powerful game served to turn off other fans that long preferred the more well-rounded women's game. And it's also true she doesn't fit the classical tennis phenotype, which absurdly earns her scorn to this day. (This article shows some of that reaction from other top women's players and their coaches: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/spo...l?referer=)

[BostonCard]

Well, if it is a question of US players, we may be about to experience a resurgence of interest in men's tennis.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/amer...nis-again/

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, if it is a question of US players, we may be about to experience a resurgence of interest in men's tennis.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/amer...nis-again/

BC

[Stymie]

Interesting thread in two regards.

Vis a vis broadcast vs. narrowcast football, there is so much "content" out there that narrowcast (aka pay for view) can only become more and more expensive for true fanatics given that only they really care enough about their team to pay for access.
For example, some relatively small number of rabid Stanford fanatics might happily pay up to $500/year for a "season ticket" to get all games live and a larger but less rabid cohort of fanatics maybe even $100-200/year to get access to all games a day or two later, and a much larger group of generic fanatics (i.e. NCAAF fanatics) might pay chump change to have random access to most NCAAF games (current cable TV model).

Re: tennis, big servers are not the problem--otherwise, John Isner would be a multiple GS winner by now.  Rather, the problem in the men's game is the big returners, particularly the Big 4 (Federer, Djokavic, Nadal and Murray), who take away the serve and volley game with their speed and reaction receiving serve.  Helping the returners has been the slowing down of the tennis ball and the tennis surfaces (even grass). This has led to a flip from the games of the 70's when most of the best men players could all serve and volley (even the "returners" such as Connors, Borg, Agassi, etc.) and the winners of men's GS titles were more evenly distributed than they are today.  To win today you need to be able to bat the ball endlessly from corner to corner, and I think this too boring for most athletes who might take up (or even just watch) tennis.

IMO

[Stymie]

Interesting thread in two regards.

Vis a vis broadcast vs. narrowcast football, there is so much "content" out there that narrowcast (aka pay for view) can only become more and more expensive for true fanatics given that only they really care enough about their team to pay for access.
For example, some relatively small number of rabid Stanford fanatics might happily pay up to $500/year for a "season ticket" to get all games live and a larger but less rabid cohort of fanatics maybe even $100-200/year to get access to all games a day or two later, and a much larger group of generic fanatics (i.e. NCAAF fanatics) might pay chump change to have random access to most NCAAF games (current cable TV model).

Re: tennis, big servers are not the problem--otherwise, John Isner would be a multiple GS winner by now.  Rather, the problem in the men's game is the big returners, particularly the Big 4 (Federer, Djokavic, Nadal and Murray), who take away the serve and volley game with their speed and reaction receiving serve.  Helping the returners has been the slowing down of the tennis ball and the tennis surfaces (even grass). This has led to a flip from the games of the 70's when most of the best men players could all serve and volley (even the "returners" such as Connors, Borg, Agassi, etc.) and the winners of men's GS titles were more evenly distributed than they are today.  To win today you need to be able to bat the ball endlessly from corner to corner, and I think this too boring for most athletes who might take up (or even just watch) tennis.

IMO

[BostonCard]

Speaking of match-fixing in tennis...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket

BC

[BostonCard]

Speaking of match-fixing in tennis...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket

BC