Balsy

You can blame Disney...or ESPN; whoever is in charge of running their operations CAN be blamed. As far as I'm concerned they were operating on a long outdated corporate model; where the consumers did not have a choice in their subscription. Basic cable had ESPN 1 and 2 (which means they were subscribed) and people could not cancel a specific subscription or a subscription to cable for a few months on a whim because of cable contracts. What has hurt ESPN is the most is not people sharing accounts (most streaming services for TV content limit to how many screens one account can be used on concurrently), in the past people who were unwilling to pay for a subscription would go over to someone's house to watch it instead of borrowing an account. Instead it's consumers finally actually having a choice in the manner (as frankly they should have always had). If I can only have an ESPN subscription for 8 months that there is content worth watching I will. I don't want it for the 4 months that I don't watch television because I'm outside. ESPN could have been prepared for this; they could have looked at tends among millennials a decade ago when they were in college/highschool and began to think of new strategies. Instead they're being reactionary; with a product that screws over people who actually do have subscriptions to you currently.

Got my tickets today! Looking forward to a new season

I really enjoy this rant, and agree completely 100%. It is absolutely the principal of the matter. We already have an ESPN/ESPN2 subscription (which also gives us ESPN3) why screw us over? Has nothing to do with delivering a quality product for a fair price, and everything to do with a desperate move to try and milk people. The only rational response for us consumers is to tell them to go shove it. I guess on the other side; Disney has royally screwed the pooch on their Star Wars investment and has now got to look at trying to recoup the $2.8 billion their in the hole on that endeavor.

No what will happen is we will stop subscribing. Why would I keep my ESPN/ESPN2 + ESPN3 Subscription if I don't get the content I want because I have to get another subscription to ESPN+ to get it. I'll just drop the ESPN/ESPN2 + ESPN3 subscription then because it's now worthless to me. The ONLY reason I had it was to watch the ESPN3 Akron games. These Corporations need to wake up and actually listen to consumers instead of whatever desperate gymnastics they want to do. They're hedging their bet on us keeping our ESPN/ESPN2 + ESPN3 subscriptions and then adding ESPN+ because they believe there is value in their ESPN programing/content. When, in reality, there is ZERO value in their programing/content (outside of the games themselves). I watch ESPN exactly ZERO times outside of when I'm in a bar. I watch ESPN3 all the time during the season. No you cannot. ESPN+ will have "unique" content only available on ESPN+ (which is basically the stuff that was unique to ESPN3; like other games and past game replay and past program replay) so there really is no reason to have a subscription to ESPN3 (which you get by having a subscription to ESPN, ESPN2).

Soooooooo some games are on ESPN+ (freaking garbage) and some games are on ESPN3...well this screws Akron fans over. Get your multiple emails read guys and gals to get your one-week-free offers to watch the ESPN+ Akron games if you're not in the area. What. A. Joke. Screw ESPN.

I've stopped reading Hustlebelt almost entirely. Their "takes" aren't that great.

Interesting. I don't agree with the summary presented to bluntly however. In the methodology states "Injury proportion ratio (IPR) was defined as the ratio of total estimated concussions to total estimated injuries. Concussion rate was defined as the number of concussions per 10,000 athlete-exposures" So you can end up having a higher IPR for a certain sport just by having less overall injuries. Less overall players would mean you have less overall injuries, which would mean the potential for a higher IPR. So saying the concussion-rate is higher for one sport in this research, DOES NOT MEAN that they suffer more concussions. Rather, it means you're more likely to sustain a concussion as compared to any other injury in that sport. In the conclusion the researchers write "The concussion rate for girls soccer is also increasing rapidly, and is now nearly tied with boys football" This directly contradicts the Football Scoop's title that Concussion rates are greater for girl sports than for boys. That's not the case in the research. Incidence of concussion to other injury (IPR) IS higher; not the actual concussion rate.

The industry, which relies on young people purchasing new subscriptions, doesn't agree with your definition of "cord-cutter". Cord-cutter includes "those who've never had cable, satellite or any kind or pay-TV service." The "cordless" if you will. From this survey: Millennials represent the biggest portion of cord-cutters, and they’re also a group marketers desperately want to reach. That’s why figures such as the new data from research firm GfK are worth noting. From a survey of 25,000 American consumers, the firm found that those ages 18 to 34 make up 43% of the so-called cordless population. That includes those who’ve never had cable, satellite or any kind of pay-TV service and have cut the cord. When looking at the group of are cord-free U.S. Millennials, about 30% , almost twice as many as the 16% of cord-free boomers, the research found. But we're splitting hairs here.

Nope it's why we're de-subscribing in droves. It's what y'all think millennials want. The industry should start looking at making quality content over more content. Every pre-game show for the NBA finals this year I had the television muted, or waited several mins after the game started because it was non-stop "where is LeBron going next year because it's CLEARLY not cleveland" (which was so disrespectful with cleveland IN the finals)...and non stop drooling over Golden State punks. Wasn't quality television worth my time to even listen to in the background. Bingo. The market has become this zombie of desperately trying to attract millennials on what they think they will be interested in, and failing to do so.

Yes, you did. I love football, but I'm also objective enough to not let my love of the sport overshadow rationality. There is a tremendous incentive for people and organizations to muddy the waters on objective science; to petty-fog the issue because of $$$$. Just because I post on something, doesn't mean I am attacking it. You can love something, but be objectively critical of it at the same time can't you? Hell, it's the people who love something that need to be THE MOST critical of it.

A point I have made previously on this topic. I just don't like the mocking tone people take when something new comes out about it. The smart money is on there being a direct link between high contact environments and CTE; and football being a high contact environment... Funny you don't credit me with saying this exact same point on this very discussion previously.

That's equivalent to saying that all smokers knew the risk of smoking in the 1950s. The medical community in regards to epidemiological research was pretty clear, yet it took the public nearly 40-years to catch up. Couldn't agree more, which is why I brought it up in the first place. This is a strawman if I ever saw one. There have been exactly zero people I have seen say they want to take football away from people who love it. The question is; are they really getting all the information on all the risk. Citing my smoking analogy above; there was a relentless campaign to undermine and belittle well-intentioned health professionals and epidemiological researchers for nearly forty years. Eventually the public did come around on the subject because of a relentless push back by scientists and empirical research; and there are far less smokers today then there were in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Does that mean that nobody smokes today? No, of course not. Did we get rid of something that people love to do? No, of course not. People choose to accept risk, yes. But people should be allowed to accept risks with all the information. Judges and juries I disagree with; unless there is a conceded effort by a profitable organization to cover up information then yes I do agree. Insurance companies totally agree with.

Some yes, some no. None of that, however, had anything to do with this conversation. So thanks for that insight. Risk of injury and concussion is one thing. Longterm affects including CTE is something entirely different right? That's awesome, thanks for the info! (and I'm not saying that sarcastically). Though I doubt they, right now, discuss CTE.

Professionals? Yes I agree, professionals do accept that risk absolutely when they sign the doted lines of their contracts. What about High school students? Children? What about families of lower middle-class to poor backgrounds. Do they truly understand the risks associated with signing up to play football, and are people actively communicating those risks when their children/young-adults are signing up? These are more with what I'm concerned with.

Yes. It was sarcastically dismissive. You took some other magical meaning from his post?

So you don't agree that its at least somewhat troubling that of the two athletes who have died recently both had early signs of CTE?

Whatever happened to the Chrome Black Z helmets? I miss those

It's absolutely exploitation. I'm getting sick of hearing "but they get a scholarship" as if you didn't already know the very thorough explanation in response to it.

I agree...I was mocking, ironically, the previous statement about "participation trophies" by Kreed. Same!

Isn't anything other than the National Championship game is a participation trophy?

Couldn't think of another place to post this, so why not in this thread.  CFB looks to add 3 new bowls by 2020. Myrtle Beach Bowl would look to possibly have tie-in with C-USA or MAC.

LeBron Executive Producer of documentary on NCAA student exploitation.

Wasn't Treadwell kicked off the team for missteps of his own?

OL dies after being hospitalized following a workout. Sad to read articles like this. Most likely an previously unknown issue.

This roster was from over a year ago... I will probably update it as we get closer to fall