560 had the Metros, Who gets Nashville SC?

[RFCCRadioAudio]

Fox Sports (or ESPN Sports once the Disney deal closes) Tennessee will be a lock for Nashville's MLS TV coverage in 2020 (maybe airing some of the USL games while the team transitions from USL to MLS), but radio rights are still up in the air.

As I mentioned in the header, 560 was the home of the Nashville Metros for LITERALLY a couple of seasons (and if not for those games, I wouldn't have known 560 existed), and 560 and the other sports stations in town have would probably have conflicts with the other college and pro sports teams in town during the USL season, so WLAC possibly would get the rights?

We probably won't know unless the broadcast rights are announced.

Any ideas where the games should go?

 

[gr8oldies]

Has MLS figured out how to have commercial breaks in soccer?

 

[CTListener]

Has MLS figured out how to have commercial breaks in soccer?

The rest of the world -- which has plenty of soccer on commercial networks -- does just fine without them, the fans of the sport don't want them, and fans trying to get into the sport won't miss them. MLS does what the rest of the world does: advertising on the margins of the action (in the score box, framing the action, underneath the picture in the "Bottom Line" area, etc.) and loading up on "real" commercials at halftime. If they're still trying to find ways to break away totally from the game for full-length ads, I'd be surprised and disappointed.

 

[TheBigA]

Interesting...how do you do that on the radio?

 

[RFCCRadioAudio]

Interesting...how do you do that on the radio?

If you're worried about commercials, during the run of play you'll probably hear live reads, and more traditional 15s, 30s or 60s will run during pregame, halftime and postgame.

 

[davideduardo]

Has MLS figured out how to have commercial breaks in soccer?

We figured out how to broadcast soccer commercially back in the 30's, in fact.

It simply involves live sponsor mentions inserted in the play. That's far less intrusive than the way American Rules football and baseball play is interrupted by long commercial breaks.

 

[CTListener]

We figured out how to broadcast soccer commercially back in the 30's, in fact.

It simply involves live sponsor mentions inserted in the play. That's far less intrusive than the way American Rules football and baseball play is interrupted by long commercial breaks.

I know you aren't a fan of the major American sports at all. I am, but I will agree with you that American football would be much more enjoyable viewing if the advertising were handled the way it is on soccer telecasts. But I suppose advertisers are willing to pay more to have their ads be the only thing the viewer sees, and the networks wouldn't be able to recoup the huge rights fees they play for NFL and major college games if they were to accept less. This isn't a problem with MLS, for which American TV pays very little.

Baseball, though, like boxing, comes with convenient breaks as a part of the sport. I attend non-televised baseball games (minor league and summer collegiate league) frequently and the experience is basically the same as it is for me when I watch MLB on TV. I talk, eat, use the "facilities," etc. during the couple of minutes between half-innings. It's part of the rhythm of the game. Is the TV advertising intrusive? Not when you've got the sound muted and you're discussing the game (or something unrelated) with someone else while it's running.

 

[davideduardo]

I know you aren't a fan of the major American sports at all. I am, but I will agree with you that American football would be much more enjoyable viewing if the advertising were handled the way it is on soccer telecasts. But I suppose advertisers are willing to pay more to have their ads be the only thing the viewer sees, and the networks wouldn't be able to recoup the huge rights fees they play for NFL and major college games if they were to accept less. This isn't a problem with MLS, for which American TV pays very little.

Baseball, though, like boxing, comes with convenient breaks as a part of the sport. I attend non-televised baseball games (minor league and summer collegiate league) frequently and the experience is basically the same as it is for me when I watch MLB on TV. I talk, eat, use the "facilities," etc. during the couple of minutes between half-innings. It's part of the rhythm of the game. Is the TV advertising intrusive? Not when you've got the sound muted and you're discussing the game (or something unrelated) with someone else while it's running.

Yet what you describe is "tradition". It's the way sports have been done in English speaking North America forever. There is no incentive to change anything because that is the way that has worked since the first baseball game was heard on the radio.

I wonder if the sports and broadcast industries have ever considered changing the way games are broadcast. And I wonder if the listeners / viewers would adapt or revolt.

I'm a fan of "the beautiful game" so I see things quite differently, of course.

 

[CTListener]

Yet what you describe is "tradition". It's the way sports have been done in English speaking North America forever. There is no incentive to change anything because that is the way that has worked since the first baseball game was heard on the radio.

I wonder if the sports and broadcast industries have ever considered changing the way games are broadcast. And I wonder if the listeners / viewers would adapt or revolt.

I'm a fan of "the beautiful game" so I see things quite differently, of course.

And I follow English football, both Premier League and Championship, so I appreciate the way those games are televised. I just don't see the point of changing the way baseball is televised. Nothing of any interest whatsoever goes on between half-innings or during pitching changes. It's just two guys playing catch. (Yes, I know that much of actual game play is two guys playing catch, but there's a man with a bat in his hands then, looking to break up that game and create some meaningful action, maybe even some scoring.) What would the viewer gain by seeing that instead of a commercial?

 

[davideduardo]

And I follow English football, both Premier League and Championship, so I appreciate the way those games are televised. I just don't see the point of changing the way baseball is televised. Nothing of any interest whatsoever goes on between half-innings or during pitching changes. It's just two guys playing catch. (Yes, I know that much of actual game play is two guys playing catch, but there's a man with a bat in his hands then, looking to break up that game and create some meaningful action, maybe even some scoring.) What would the viewer gain by seeing that instead of a commercial?

I think the game that could benefit from changes is US football. And agree that there is little that could make baseball a bit more exciting.

 

[TheBigA]

I think the game that could benefit from changes is US football. And agree that there is little that could make baseball a bit more exciting.

A lot of the rules regarding commercials and pro football are controlled by the NFL. There are likely many more ways TV could place commercials during play, but they aren't allowed by the NFL. Examples might be sponsoring the extra point or just running sponsorship crawls during play. Those are not allowed. From what I've been told, the NFL is more restrictive about TV sponsorships during its broadcasts than other pro sports.

 

[RFCCRadioAudio]

94.9 Game 2 is not a bad landing spot for the English SC broadcasts, as well as 96.7/810 El Jefe for the Spanish SC broadcasts, but I wish Cromwell would put the Engilsh broadcasts on 102.5 The Game next season, and somehow 900 AM got the Spanish broadcast rights next season.