A
Avid Listener
Guest
When referring to TV Networks, the words "execs" and "thinking" do not belong in the same sentence. Thinking network executive is an oxymoron.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Could the World Series eventually move to Fox Sports 1?
- Thread starter mvcg66b3r
- Start date
When referring to TV Networks, the words "execs" and "thinking" do not belong in the same sentence. Thinking network executive is an oxymoron.
The answer to Don CT's question is, CBS shows absolutely do better in doubleheader weeks than single header weeks. Whether that's good for the shows long-term is another question, but CBS likely feels its strategy is working. It helps that you're leading into 60 Minutes rather than whatever random animated show Fox doesn't believe in enough not to subject to pre-emptions. CBS does schedule 60 Minutes to start at 7:30 on doubleheader weeks, not that it ever actually starts then either.
They'd probably be happy if that happened. Remember when they were threatening to go cable-only in the face of Aereo? In their minds, the fact people can pick them up for free is their Achilles heel compared to cable networks, and the only reason they keep running the broadcast networks is a) because they always have and b) for PR purposes. I mean, this thread is ostensibly about the freaking World Series moving to cable as soon as Fox thinks they can get away with it.
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I suspect that you're half right. It's not the free aspect though. In customer's minds, all cable networks that you don't have to pay extra for, like HBO and Showtime, are perceived as "free". Your cable fee is to get clear reception, without ghosts and static. The extra channels on cable are a bonus. Yes, I know that in today's digital OTA environment that's no longer true, but I'm talking about perception, not reality.
Where the cable networks like AMC, TNT, and all the rest have an edge over OTA networks is that they don't have to obey the FCCs archaic content rules. Conan O'Brien can say "bullshit" on his show, Jimmy Fallon and Dave Letterman can't. The Walking Dead contains content that OTA TV cannot.
As for moving sporting events from OTA to cable, Monday Night Football already set the precedent. Though, if you go back further, I remember going to the Pittsburgh Civic Arena in 1965 to watch the Indy 500 on pay-per-view big screen TV. It was black and white, but it was the Indy 500 on live TV. There's nothing that could stop Fox from winning the bid for the rights to the World Series and putting it on one of their cable channels. The only concession they'd probably have to make is to put it on OTA TV in the cities of the two teams in the Series.
It absolutely is the free aspect. Fox and others threatened to go cable-only in response to Aereo because they didn't want to lose their ability to collect retransmission consent revenue. Being free of unfairly-enforced nanny-state regulations is just a bonus. At this point, retransmission consent is the only way they have to make up their deficit to the cable networks that can collect subscription fees, especially ESPN. The Aereo situation revealed that the big broadcast networks, at least, are scared to death of cord-cutting, which should be their biggest boon - whether that's because of the loss of retrans revenue or because they all own cable networks is an open question.
I don't think the quick trigger networks have had in pulling "failing" shows, or other examples of networks' extreme short-term thinking like how CBS programs Sundays, has anything to do with whether or not they want to be free-to-air networks at all. It's a result of the limited amount of primetime they have to program combined with their reliance on advertising revenue; they have to squeeze as much money as they can out of what they have, rather than amortize it over the entire day and over a bunch of reruns. Worth noting that some of this might be changing; we're about to hit November sweeps with only one fall show pulled from the schedule, and that very recently.
Last edited:
Maybe Chicago Fire and Chicago PD?
In re: World Series moving to FS1, given that the BCS bowls (and the upcoming College Football Playoff) were on ESPN, nothing would surprise me. I think the only major postseason sport that will stay on network TV for the time being is the Super Bowl. Who knows how long that lasts.
Sports are sure starting to become Cable based, actually if the World Series moves to FS1, the only championship games that'll remain OTA, will be the NBA Finals, and the Super Bowl.
How about the Final Four? Also seems to me NBC did the Stanley Cup this year.
The Stanley Cup finals were split between NBC and NBCSN.
The Final Four will alternate between CBS and TBS, and the Championship game will always be on CBS.
You qualified it as "championship games," and the championships for hockey and college basketball were on OTA TV, just like the World Series and Super Bowl.
The NHL finals are spread out on NBC and NBCSN. If the series goes 7 they spread I think 4 games on NBCSN
NBCSN always has two of the first four games, so they always have exactly two. This season, to take advantage of the Belmont Stakes lead-in with California Chrome trying for the Triple Crown for Game 2, Game 4 aired on NBCSN and could have seen the championship be awarded. It is not the first time Game 4 was on NBCSN, but it may have been the first time a team went in with a 3-0 lead, and there have been no sweeps in recent memory to be awarded on cable.
This is a misinterpretation of what is happening. Starting in 2016, the entire Final Four, including the championship game, will swap between CBS and TBS. In 2014 and 2015, the national semifinals are on TBS while the championship is on CBS.
So yes, if this were to happen only the Super Bowl and NBA Finals would be consistently guaranteed to be awarded on broadcast among team sports. And honestly, if it gets to that point the NBA might be quicker to move their finals to cable. Some have speculated that TNT might pick up some Finals games, and certainly TNT has more credibility to show a major championship than FS1 does right now, but I don't know if it was actually considered by the parties involved; certainly there's no provision for it in the recently-signed contract that I know of.
At some point ESPN will get the Superbowl. And then that would be once every 5 years if they are added into the rotation. They are just starting the new TV contracts so unless they make adjustments that wouldn't happen for another decade.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Anyone with a lick of sense would realize that it was implied that it would "championship games" for important, major-league sports. The Championship for the Pro Bowlers Tour is probably not on OTA networks, nor is the Arenabowl, nor the National Lacrosse Championships, nor the AAA World Series, nor the Little League World Series, nor dozens and dozens of other fringe and/or minor league sports. College sports maybe popular, but compared to the professional major leagues, all amateur sports are minor league. NCAA football is to the NFL and NCAA basketball is to the NBA what AAA baseball is to MLB.
Maybe for you, but in terms of viewership, college basketball gets higher ratings than the World Series. Especially this year.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I wasn't comparing basketball to baseball. I was comparing AAA level amateur basketball to major league professional basketball. At all levels, from Little League to MLB, baseball has less appeal in 2014 than basketball does.
Granted, the Las Vegas bookies might like AAA amateur basketball better than major league pro basketball because more marks will bet on college games than on the pros. But that has nothing to do with comparing basketball to baseball.
The World Series ratings were so bad this year, I bet the Little League World Series on ESPN came pretty close.
Not even close. The World Series, airing entirely OTA on Fox, averaged a 13.8 rating, thanks to Game 7 averaging just over 23 million viewers(Fox claims that around 52 million watched at least part of that telecast). Viwership for the first 6 games had been roughly an 8.9 rating, and about 11 million viewers.
The Little League Series final game, on ABC, had around 5.3 million viewers,and ABC averaged a 2.7 rating for the three games played on the final weekend. For all games, the LLWS averaged a 1,1 rating, and about 1.7 million viewers per telecast (Two games featuring Mo'Ne Davis drew 4 and 5 million viewer for ESPN, which did outdraw just about every regular-season game on TV this year, but even 'low-rated' MLB postseason blows away events like that.)
The Little League Series final game, on ABC, had around 5.3 million viewers,and ABC averaged a 2.7 rating for the three games played on the final weekend. For all games, the LLWS averaged a 1,1 rating, and about 1.7 million viewers per telecast (Two games featuring Mo'Ne Davis drew 4 and 5 million viewer for ESPN, which did outdraw just about every regular-season game on TV this year, but even 'low-rated' MLB postseason blows away events like that.)
If you think college football and basketball are still "amateur" in any way except as a way to try to get away with not paying talent for their labor except under the table, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. I'd rather not get into the whole debate on how college sports' original purpose as a way to build young bodies and as a focal point and source of togetherness for the college community has been utterly undermined and turned into little more than minor leagues the NFL and NBA don't have to pay for that have sold their naming rights for a fanbase.
I think the point is, there was a time when any event that was big enough would air on broadcast as a matter of course. Whether or not college sports are "minor leagues" is immaterial when they're still popular enough that the BCS/CFP and Final Four being on cable is still relevant to that question (the BCS title game has typically been the most popular non-NFL/Olympic sporting event of any given year even in the cable era). We're talking about the freaking Super Bowl potentially moving to cable and there isn't even that much outrage on a board primarily about broadcast television. That would have been unthinkable five years ago.
Besides, if college basketball is little more than a "minor league", what would it say if the Final Four were on broadcast and the NBA Finals were on cable?
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I was only using "amateur" in the same ironic sense that the NCAA uses the word. The issue isn't whether or not the college players are paid over or under the table, the issue is that NCAA football is to the NFL, or NCAA basketball is to the NBA as AAA baseball is to MLB.
I don't really give a damn about the origins of college sports in the 19th century. In the 21st century, college sports are minor league compared to major league pro sports.
It would say that the people involved in negotiating the deals had different goals, agendas, and skills. If the NCAA were to decide they wanted to be on broadcast for whatever reason, and the NBA decided that they'd prefer to be on cable, again for whatever reason, then that's what would happen. And don't forget, it's also a question of the networks doing the bidding. If a network company would rather put either set of games on their cable or their OTA networks, then they'd bid for the rights accordingly. It's not a simple, cut-and-dried issue.
D
danderson4411
Guest
nbc would sometimes preempt solid gold for baseball and on scene sometimes for the nba and that would make me mad my parents had to explan to me that sports take priority cbs sometimes would do that with hee haw and baseball like in 1991 when the dodgers giants was deciding if the braves would win the nl west
- Status