Speaking of CW news

[oldvnewschool]

I've read a recent ediotral on Broadcasting & Cable Magazine

It states that the CW must try to get some sports in order to make money.

Which got me thinking since the MLB package is set to expire

and we know that CBS and Time Warner have some disposable income

they should try to get the entire MLB broadcast package from FOX

make a low bid at best and see if Bud Selig will fall for it

hook-line-and sinker

then that way the CW will get some huge street cred.

Because that's the one neither the WB or UPN had

SPORTS BABY!!

 

[mrpariot]

> I've read a recent ediotral on Broadcasting & Cable Magazine
> It states that the CW must try to get some sports in order
> to make money.
> Which got me thinking since the MLB package is set to expire
> and we know that CBS and Time Warner have some disposable
> income
> they should try to get the entire MLB broadcast package from
> FOX make a low bid at best and see if Bud Selig will fall for it
> hook-line-and sinker
> then that way the CW will get some huge street cred.
> Because that's the one neither the WB or UPN had
> SPORTS BABY!!
>
Nice thought...but the MLB demands so much money from TV that CW would (even with Trib and CBS deep pockets) go bankrupt trying to pay the price. Plus, it makes no sense for MLB to relegate their product to a network that will have, by comparison to "the Big Four," less of a distribution platform.

MLB has a solid cable distribution through the ESPN, Regional Fox Sports and regional cable sports channels; plus its own "Extra Innings" package. And, Fox knows the value of baseball, so I suspect they'll pony up the money to keep it...unless ABC/ESPN make a better deal that includes OTA distribution on ABC and expanded coverage on the ESPN nets.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Most sports would be very incompatible with what is expected to be a heavily-female target demographic for the CW network (apart from the "sports entertainment" series "Smackdown!", which may very well be on the CW schedule).

The only sports coverage I could see the CW grab that would appeal to it's apparent target demographiuc might be some figure-skating if rights for the national and/or world championships become available in the next couple of years.

A longshot, although not very compatible with CW's expected female target audience might be an arrangement with co-parent CBS and the NCAA, under which two stations would carry action through the first three rounds of the NCAA Division 1 men's basketball tournament. During those first three rounds, there are usually two or more games taking place at the same time, so it's possible that both the CBS and CW affiliates could carry action. Games of home-market schools or the game deemed "most important" in a time period would be shown on the CBS station. When the CBS affiliate is carrying a game of a home-market team, the CW could carry the "most important" game on a national basis at that time. If the CBS station is carrying the "most important" game at a particular time, the CW station could carry the next most important game.

Using both CBS and the CW would increase the number of NCAA tournament games broadcast in a market from the current 26 games to 45 games (based on the 2005 CBS NCAA tournament broadcast schedule). That adds up to eight additional first-round games, seven additional second-round games, and would allow all eight regional semi-finals to be televised on over-the-air TV in most of the country (four of them on the CBS station in a particular city, the other four on the CW station in that market, with the regional semis of most local interest in a market being on the CBS station).

 

[radiolives]

> Using both CBS and the CW would increase the number of NCAA
> tournament games broadcast in a market from the current 26
> games to 45 games (based on the 2005 CBS NCAA tournament
> broadcast schedule). That adds up to eight additional
> first-round games, seven additional second-round games, and
> would allow all eight regional semi-finals to be televised
> on over-the-air TV in most of the country (four of them on
> the CBS station in a particular city, the other four on the
> CW station in that market, with the regional semis of most
> local interest in a market being on the CBS station).
>

I remember that was said once before on here for UPN to air some of March Madness. But sure I like the idea if that happened.

But to just add on about the MLB deal. Could we maybe see NBC wanted it. They do have Al Michaels to broadcast NBC Sunday Night Football and he has broadcasted baseball before. This is because I am sure he doesn't want the spring and summer off of not broadcasting sports. Also NBC I am sure just didn't want him for great NFL play by play coverage but for other sports.

 

[Garrett]

> I've read a recent ediotral on Broadcasting & Cable Magazine
>
>
> It states that the CW must try to get some sports in order
> to make money.
>

So what? That's an opinion. Know what I think about editorials? Not a darned thing! Opinions mean nothing. I can say "CW won't make money unless they run a national newscast 6 days a week," and know what? My opinion is no worse than thier's, because it's an opinion. So I don't care that they think CW needs sports. It's an opinion, a guess, and not a stone hard fact. And that's MY OPINION.

 

[JeeperOne]

Hi everyone:

> I've read a recent ediotral on Broadcasting & Cable Magazine
>
>
> It states that the CW must try to get some sports in order
> to make money.

Really?

> Which got me thinking since the MLB package is set to expire
>
>
> and we know that CBS and Time Warner have some disposable
> income
>
> they should try to get the entire MLB broadcast package from
> FOX

Will NEVER happen.

> make a low bid at best and see if Bud Selig will fall for it
>
>
> hook-line-and sinker

Baseball has BIG time problems right now. The LAST thing the CW needs is a sport with image and identity problems.

> then that way the CW will get some huge street cred.

They can get that by broadcasting The Academy Awards or something similar. That's how FOX got ITS start.

> Because that's the one neither the WB or UPN had
>
> SPORTS BABY!!

CBS could've produced an NFL game for UPN to televise on Saturday Nights if they wanted to and they and the NFL reached an agreement. But Viacom chose not to go that route. WHY is anybody's guess.

In short, you don't need a sporting event to get some "street cred". All you need are shows that attract audiences and draw big ratings. If it's a sporting event, great. If not, oh well.

Just MY opinion...

Cheers

Pat<P ID="signature">______________

http://patspodcast.blogspot.com/
Radio? Uhh.....What's THAT?? </P>

 

[JohnL]

> I've read a recent ediotral on Broadcasting & Cable Magazine
>
>
> It states that the CW must try to get some sports in order
> to make money.
>
> Which got me thinking since the MLB package is set to expire
>
>
> and we know that CBS and Time Warner have some disposable
> income
>
> they should try to get the entire MLB broadcast package from
> FOX
>
> make a low bid at best and see if Bud Selig will fall for it
>
>
> hook-line-and sinker
>
> then that way the CW will get some huge street cred.
>
> Because that's the one neither the WB or UPN had
>
> SPORTS BABY!!
>

I agree, in order for a new network to live and be somewhat profitable like NBC, CBS, Fox, and ABC they HAVE to offer some weekend sports programming. It was never the intent for WB or UPN to offer that. They strictly were designed to offer Hollywood made TV programs.

If the CW gets into sports they would be doing a wise thing.

-John L.