NFL TV Rights After 2013

[TheBigA]

Spike TV has a MUCH better chance IMO !!!

The biggest waste of a channel I've ever seen. If CBS was run as a unified company, with broadcasting and cable run under the same management, Spike would become CBS Sports Channel, competing against ESPN, TBS, and the new Versus. It would be far more powerful and have more of an impact than it is now.

 

[JeeperOne]

I'd be shocked to see Fox let the NFL go... Landing the NFL is what punched Fox's ticket to the bigs in the first place and it's a large part of the reason you see Fox stations with VHF virtual channel numbers today.

My thoughts exactly... Fox didn't make that blockbuster deal with New World for nothing...

But remember the year it was when they landed the NFL though. Fox has only GROWN since then.....

Cheers

 

[radiolives]

I'd be shocked to see Fox let the NFL go. Having the NFL brings prestige to a network's sports division, but that's especially true at Fox. Landing the NFL is what punched Fox's ticket to the bigs in the first place and it's a large part of the reason you see Fox stations with VHF virtual channel numbers today.

True, but that was then and this is now. What made CBS let go of the NFL rights?

The biggest waste of a channel I've ever seen. If CBS was run as a unified company, with broadcasting and cable run under the same management, Spike would become CBS Sports Channel, competing against ESPN, TBS, and the new Versus. It would be far more powerful and have more of an impact than it is now.
[/quote]

If only Spike TV was under CBS Corp instead of Viacom. Also as for CBS Sports Channel they don't have many rights to sports other then a few. Sure they have a powerful name going along with the network "CBS Sports".

 

[TheBigA]

Also as for CBS Sports Channel they don't have many rights to sports other then a few.

At one point, neither did ESPN. That's the kind of thing you build. But to start, they have a part of the NFL, they have a lot of golf, including The Masters, they have a portion of the NCAA, including the Final Four, so they have some building blocks. Butr considering the clearance Spike has on cable systems, they don't have much now in terms of content. So having a direction, whether it's sports or news or even off-net re-runs, would be a step up from where they are now.

 

[dhett]

I'd be shocked to see Fox let the NFL go. Having the NFL brings prestige to a network's sports division, but that's especially true at Fox. Landing the NFL is what punched Fox's ticket to the bigs in the first place and it's a large part of the reason you see Fox stations with VHF virtual channel numbers today.

True, but that was then and this is now. What made CBS let go of the NFL rights?

Not entirely sure, but I'm not ruling out collective mental illness. All I know is when the TV rights came up again, CBS was not going to be denied, and NBC lost out. Then NBC made sure they got the NFL back by landing Sunday Night Football with the "A" games and flex scheduling for the last half of the season. The only reason ABC Sports hasn't pursued the NFL is because there is no ABC Sports any longer. It's all ESPN and they have the red-chip Monday night game as well as all the other sporting events they can handle.

 

[teevee]

Re:Fox...they will not lose the NFL.

How can you be so sure? Didn't News Corp just recently lose some revenue?

Would FOX broadcast be alright without the NFL?

As for truTV having a NFL package due to how many households they are in. I guess the same would go for Versus which is on digital cable in some places. NBC could use USA Network instead thats in every household

Don't forget they have the x-factor this fall they can promote their fall shows off of that if it's a big hit so maybe they could live without football I could see nbc taking football and maybe baseball away from them.

 

[radiolives]

Don't forget they have the x-factor this fall they can promote their fall shows off of that if it's a big hit so maybe they could live without football I could see nbc taking football and maybe baseball away from them.
[/quote]

Baseball to NBC Sports, what does NBC Sports currently air on Saturday's? In May they air the Kentucky Derby which is on Saturday. And we all know Bob Costas would love this as he calls games for MLB Network, also NBC has Al Michaels to use if they wanted baseball.

Another network could be ABC, as ESPN would love to have the World Series in their hands I feel.

Either way its better then hearing Joe and Tim on FOX ugh.

 

[TheBigA]

Baseball to NBC Sports, what does NBC Sports currently air on Saturday's? In May they air the Kentucky Derby which is on Saturday. And we all know Bob Costas would love this as he calls games for MLB Network, also NBC has Al Michaels to use if they wanted baseball.

NBC lost their shirts with the Game of the Week. That's why they let it go. And Fox is also losing money with it. The only thing that makes money is the World Series. There are simply way too many games in baseball for a weekly series to do well. ESPN has baseball three nights a week now. Night baseball is the only way to go. But the company that has spent the most for baseball, and thus gets a share of the playoffs is TBS. That is the baseball company as far as MLB is concerned. The bad news with Fox is their cable channels stink, so when their playoffs go long, they end up on FX. That sucks. NBC could do a lot better. But I doubt they'd be willing to suffer through the Saturday afternoon series for a shot at the playoffs.

 

[DToTheJ]

Games also end up on FX if NASCAR needs to start their race on time... :

 

[radiolives]

Games also end up on FX if NASCAR needs to start their race on time... :

Which is done wrong, they should stay with the current sport in progress finish that out then show the next sport matchup already in progress. Meaning start next event on FX and not move the current event that went over its time limit.

ESPN does that when they run over and the next sporting event they are also covering is about to start. So ESPN keeps in play with the current game and shows the new event that is about to start on ESPN2. Then when the game that went over its time, ESPN jumps into the event that is surpose to be playing. While at the same time ESPN2 is also broadcasting it. ESPN2 will stay with the event telling people and on the bottom line move over to ESPN. Which will go until the next commerical break. Which when ESPN2 comes back out of commerical they will continue with what was surprose to be on. FOX could learn something from ESPN, but FOX is to stubborn.

 

[Mainedude2007]

Games also end up on FX if NASCAR needs to start their race on time... :

Which is done wrong, they should stay with the current sport in progress finish that out then show the next sport matchup already in progress. Meaning start next event on FX and not move the current event that went over its time limit.

Fox does that to NASCAR for contractual reasons, I believe they HAVE to air the drop of the green flag on the big Fox network and can't shuffle the entire start of the race to f/x like ESPN can with most of their programming. Fox needs to learn to write fine print in their contracts.

 

[radiolives]

If I were MLB I would take my product to another network that would show the entire game and not displace it due to a rain delay or extra innings. When this situation happen which I think was last year did MLB get ticked off?

 

[teevee]

If I were MLB I would take my product to another network that would show the entire game and not displace it due to a rain delay or extra innings. When this situation happen which I think was last year did MLB get ticked off?

Nobody wants it nbc abc and cbs have been passing on it for years it's fox or don't let the screen door hit you on the ass on the way to cable.

 

[justpassingthough]

When it comes to prominence and relevance as far as networks are concerned, having the NFL, more than any other sport, puts you or keeps you on the map.

More than likely, whichever OTA networks end up with NFL rights, will also carry the rights to rotate Super Bowl coverage during the contract years. The increasing ratings of Super Bowls make it the one true 'television event of the year', when a significant majority of the audience is actually tuned to one program on one network. Just look at the season ending ratings from the past few years, and you can see how Fox and CBS jockeyed for the overall #1 network based partly on whether they had the rights to the Super Bowl in those respective years.

 

[KeithE4]

If I were MLB I would take my product to another network that would show the entire game and not displace it due to a rain delay or extra innings. When this situation happen which I think was last year did MLB get ticked off?

Nobody wants it nbc abc and cbs have been passing on it for years it's fox or don't let the screen door hit you on the ass on the way to cable.

Now that MLB.TV is offering the occasional game for free, maybe they should just do that for all Saturday afternoon games, should they decide not to renew with Fox (or vice-versa).

 

[JeeperOne]

If I were MLB I would take my product to another network that would show the entire game and not displace it due to a rain delay or extra innings. When this situation happen which I think was last year did MLB get ticked off?

Nobody wants it nbc abc and cbs have been passing on it for years it's fox or don't let the screen door hit you on the ass on the way to cable.

Now that MLB.TV is offering the occasional game for free, maybe they should just do that for all Saturday afternoon games, should they decide not to renew with Fox (or vice-versa).

You're not confusing MLB.TV with MLB Network, are you?

MLB.TV is a website that offers live streaming video on a subscription basis. MLB Network is MLB's 24/7 cable/satellite TV network

Big difference

Cheers

 

[mgsports]

I would expand ESPN MLB deal and also allow MLB network to call more live Games with it's Crew meaning more then one game a week and put some National Games FSN.
ESPN can put some MLB Games on ABC.

 

[TheBigA]

Now that MLB.TV is offering the occasional game for free, maybe they should just do that for all Saturday afternoon games, should they decide not to renew with Fox (or vice-versa).

Depends. I bet the fee they get from Fox is higher than the ad revenues from their own games, based on audience figures.

Typically, those MLB net games simply pick up a local broadcast, rather than their own origination.

 

[KeithE4]

Now that MLB.TV is offering the occasional game for free, maybe they should just do that for all Saturday afternoon games, should they decide not to renew with Fox (or vice-versa).

You're not confusing MLB.TV with MLB Network, are you?

MLB.TV is a website that offers live streaming video on a subscription basis. MLB Network is MLB's 24/7 cable/satellite TV network

Big difference

Cheers

Nope. Been a subscriber to MLB.TV for the last couple of years. I do know the difference between it and MLB Network. MLB Network is irrelevant to me as I no longer have cable.

This year, if you look on the mlb.com page that lists the games on MLB.TV and radio, they show one or two games every few days as "free games." That means that anybody should be able to watch on their browser or through a Boxee or Roku box without paying - but only that game. There are none today, but tomorrow's Dodgers-Pirates game will be.

This has nothing to do with MLB Network unless they are also showing the free games on that channel.

 

[radiolives]

ESPN can put some MLB Games on ABC.

ESPN should just get the MLB Saturday deal for ESPN on ABC when FOX's deal expires.