ESPN to broadcast BCS Bowls (Orange, Fiesta, & Sugar) beginning in Jan. 2011

[oldvnewschool]

It was announced on espn.com and on the bottom line feeder in the ncaaf section of ESPN TV.

It wil be a 4 year deal that will expire in 2013-14.

It calls for all 5 BCS Bowls Games, including the Rose Bowl, to be broadcast on the flagship ESPN Cable Network.

Or at least that's what they promise to do when you consider the million ESPN networks that are on today.

I think it will be a good fit.

I really felt FOX didn't have enough knowledge of College Football to present at least the big BCS bowls in the right way like ABC/ESPN did.

 

[DToTheJ]

Great. Anyone know if "America's Funniest Videos" will be canceled by then? ;D

 

[dhett]

It was announced on espn.com and on the bottom line feeder in the ncaaf section of ESPN TV.

It wil be a 4 year deal that will expire in 2013-14.

It calls for all 5 BCS Bowls Games, including the Rose Bowl, to be broadcast on the flagship ESPN Cable Network.

Moving the games exclusively to pay TV? College Football just kissed off about 15% of its audience.

 

[KeithE4]

Moving the games exclusively to pay TV? College Football just kissed off about 15% of its audience.

About 15% of American households get their TV strictly over the air, but not all of them watch college football. If even half do, that's a loss of 7.5%, and most of that percentage probably aren't in the advertisers' target demo.

Besides, although I haven't heard anything about it, I'll wager a guess that the games will be offered over the air in the teams' local markets, like the NFL does for their games on cable.

Or, some of those bowls could still end up on ABC (which as far as sports programming goes, is considered a part of ESPN), especially the Rose Bowl, which is already there.

 

[MarcB]

Great. Anyone know if "America's Funniest Videos" will be canceled by then? ;D

I figured with the onslaught of YOUTUBE AFV would be long gone already.

 

[TexasTom]

It was announced on espn.com and on the bottom line feeder in the ncaaf section of ESPN TV.

It wil be a 4 year deal that will expire in 2013-14.

It calls for all 5 BCS Bowls Games, including the Rose Bowl, to be broadcast on the flagship ESPN Cable Network.

Moving the games exclusively to pay TV? College Football just kissed off about 15% of its audience.

It may not be a good deal for the viewers, but it will be a great deal for the schools divvying up the extra money that they'll be making by moving those bowl games over to ESPN. And for ESPN it also works out well -- they'll just up the subscriber fees that they charge in order to cover the cost of the new deal. In the end, cable/satellite viewers will pay a little bit more for the privilege of being able to watch those games on a different channel.

Welcome to the crazy, upside down world of television economics, where any resemblance to an open and robust marketplace is accidental.

 

[dhett]

About 15% of American households get their TV strictly over the air, but not all of them watch college football. If even half do, that's a loss of 7.5%, and most of that percentage probably aren't in the advertisers' target demo.

That's assuming that all cable/satellite households watch college football. I don't see the ratio in OTA-only households being any different than cable/satellite households, or a difference in the ratio of out-of-target-demo viewers, so it's still a 15% audience reduction.

 

[KeithE4]

About 15% of American households get their TV strictly over the air, but not all of them watch college football. If even half do, that's a loss of 7.5%, and most of that percentage probably aren't in the advertisers' target demo.

That's assuming that all cable/satellite households watch college football. I don't see the ratio in OTA-only households being any different than cable/satellite households, or a difference in the ratio of out-of-target-demo viewers, so it's still a 15% audience reduction.

You may be right, but 100% of cable/satellite households pay for college football on ESPN. About $2 of our bill goes directly to the Walt Disney Company for the ESPN networks. That's where ESPN gets most of its money - about $170 million per month, assuming 85 million subscribers. That's how they can pay $500 million for the rights to the BCS games, plus Monday Night Football, MLB and the NBA a few nights per week each, etc.

The Mickey Mouse Outfit ain't hurtin'. ;D

 

[Poledo]

I don't know about the rest of the country, but living in North Florida, Alabama, and Georgia, I'd guess that far more than 15% of SEC fans watch games OTA. This really sucks, unless ESPN puts the games on ABC in the teams' home states.

What's the status of the BCS national championship game? Hopefully at least that one will be on ABC.

 

[oldvnewschool]

Actually, there is a slight correction.

Watching on Sportscenter yesterday they mention that the Rose Bowl game will still air on ABC through 2014 due to a seperate deal.

The remaining bowl games will air on ESPN Cable.

They mentioned it's the first time that a major pro or college men's sport championship will air on cable.

 

[dhett]

You may be right, but 100% of cable/satellite households pay for college football on ESPN. About $2 of our bill goes directly to the Walt Disney Company for the ESPN networks. That's where ESPN gets most of its money - about $170 million per month, assuming 85 million subscribers. That's how they can pay $500 million for the rights to the BCS games, plus Monday Night Football, MLB and the NBA a few nights per week each, etc.

The Mickey Mouse Outfit ain't hurtin'. ;D

Which really stinks for subscriber households that aren't interested in sports. I don't think it's ever going to happen, but should Congress ever require a la carte subscription, there's going to be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth, first from the sports networks losing revenue sources, then from the subscribers when they find out what the programming really costs after the sports networks raise prices.

 

[Nate Wesley]

It may not be a good deal for the viewers, but it will be a great deal for the schools divvying up the extra money that they'll be making by moving those bowl games over to ESPN. And for ESPN it also works out well -- they'll just up the subscriber fees that they charge in order to cover the cost of the new deal. In the end, cable/satellite viewers will pay a little bit more for the privilege of being able to watch those games on a different channel.

And watch Comcast, Time Warner, Cablevision, and other big cable companies justifably start moving ESPN to a premier sports tier. If there's one teeny-tiny issue that I might side with the evil cable companies on, it's dealing with the Worldwide Leader.

 

[liradioisbad]

Actually, there is a slight correction.

Watching on Sportscenter yesterday they mention that the Rose Bowl game will still air on ABC through 2014 due to a seperate deal.

The remaining bowl games will air on ESPN Cable.

They mentioned it's the first time that a major pro or college men's sport championship will air on cable.

According to this article, there is reportedly a clause where if the rest of the BCS games move to cable, the Rose Bowl would be allowed to follow suit:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-espn19-2008nov19,0,2403997.story

 

[justthenumbers]

That's assuming that all cable/satellite households watch college football. I don't see the ratio in OTA-only households being any different than cable/satellite households, or a difference in the ratio of out-of-target-demo viewers, so it's still a 15% audience reduction.

It’s a 15% potential audience reduction.

Just because a program is shown on a cable network doesn’t mean that it will automatically deliver a smaller audience than if it were on a broadcast station.

For instance, ESPN's Monday Night Football game between the 49ers and Cardinals was simulcast on KTVK (Channel 3 in Phoenix, for those unfamiliar with the market.)

Even though KTVK supposedly has “100%” market penetration, and ESPN does not -- the ESPN telecast delivered a DMA household rating that was 64% higher than KTVK's. There was an even wider margin between the two channels (well over 100%) when looking at key sales-friendly age groups, such as Men 25-54.

 

[dhett]

It’s a 15% potential audience reduction.

I'll buy that.

Even though KTVK supposedly has “100%” market penetration, and ESPN does not -- the ESPN telecast delivered a DMA household rating that was 64% higher than KTVK's. There was an even wider margin between the two channels (well over 100%) when looking at key sales-friendly age groups, such as Men 25-54.

Assuming that you're saying that the game was on both ESPN and KTVK, and considering that MNF is normally on ESPN and not on KTVK, that's not surprising. The ESPN crowd will tune into ESPN, while the OTA crowd would be on KTVK. Those stats really don't mean much. Had the game been exclusively on KTVK, the potential is there to draw a larger audience than had the game been exclusively on ESPN, and most likely would have.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Also, MNF usually goes to second tier stations. KTVK, as an indie, probably doesn't have the same viewership as an ABC affiliate might.

 

[KeithE4]

Also, MNF usually goes to second tier stations. KTVK, as an indie, probably doesn't have the same viewership as an ABC affiliate might.

You obviously don't live in Phoenix. ;D

#1 - Our ABC affiliate, Scripps-owned KNXV-TV Ch. 15, is a local joke. Despite statement #2 below, KTVK normally has much better ratings than KNXV.

#2 - KTVK has programmed almost exclusively to women for several years. The MNF contract is a holdover and my guess is that it probably won't be renewed. The Belo stations (KTVK & KASW/61) dropped all other sports programming in 2007.

 

[justthenumbers]

#1 - Our ABC affiliate, Scripps-owned KNXV-TV Ch. 15, is a local joke. Despite statement #2 below, KTVK normally has much better ratings than KNXV.

Generally speaking, that has changed a bit with the introduction of Local People Meters (instead of diaries) in the Phoenix market. KTVK's local news still beat KNXV's, but KTVK's dominance is not what it was.

Had the game been exclusively on KTVK, the potential is there to draw a larger audience than had the game been exclusively on ESPN, and most likely would have.

Fair enough - although, referring to what I said above, it seems that KTVK has been hurt the most by the change in audience measurement methodology, so I don't know if they would dominate as much as they would have in the past.

The Cardinals game on Thanksgiving will be shown on NFL Network, with KUTP* getting the simulcast. I’m quite certain that KUTP will win that battle, given NFL Network’s well-publicized limited distribution. However, if it were ESPN vs. KUTP, I could definitely see ESPN outperforming KUTP. Even if it were an “exclusive rights” contest (like the scenario you presented above), I think that ESPN might top KUTP.

* - for those unfamiliar with the market, KUTP is the local UHF MyNetworkTV affiliate.

 

[KeithE4]

Fair enough - although, referring to what I said above, it seems that KTVK has been hurt the most by the change in audience measurement methodology, so I don't know if they would dominate as much as they would have in the past.

Maybe so, but they aren't losing audience to Channel 15. Maybe to KSAZ/10 (Fox) and/or KPNX/12 (NBC), but not KNXV.

The Cardinals game on Thanksgiving will be shown on NFL Network, with KUTP* getting the simulcast. I’m quite certain that KUTP will win that battle, given NFL Network’s well-publicized limited distribution. However, if it were ESPN vs. KUTP, I could definitely see ESPN outperforming KUTP. Even if it were an “exclusive rights” contest (like the scenario you presented above), I think that ESPN might top KUTP.

* - for those unfamiliar with the market, KUTP is the local UHF MyNetworkTV affiliate.

It's also a Fox O&O and the OTA home of the Phoenix Suns, who don't play that night. If they did (and do next Tuesday & Wednesday - those games will be on 45), they wouldn't be carrying the Cards game.