• 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

Where would Fox be without the NFL deal in 94?

DToTheJ said:
nomadcowatbk said:
...XFL and WWE were not major sports...
Click to expand...

XFL was major enough for NBC to sign up. :eek:
Click to expand...
Yeah & look how THAT turned out ::)

Both UPN & The WB were right to stay clear of that mess.....

Cheers ;D
 
Kurt Toy said:
What if Fox got the AFC instead of the NFC?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't have any difference since the NFC's Super Bowl dominance came to an end when John Elway & the Denver Broncos outlasted Brett Favre & the Green Bay Packers (Which was reaffirmed with Denver's TROUNCING of the Dan Reeves coached Atlanta Falcons the following year in a game televised by Fox)

JMO.....

Cheers ;D
 
Pat Cook said:
DToTheJ said:
nomadcowatbk said:
...XFL and WWE were not major sports...
Click to expand...

XFL was major enough for NBC to sign up. :eek:
Click to expand...
Yeah & look how THAT turned out ::)

Both UPN & The WB were right to stay clear of that mess.....

Cheers ;D
Click to expand...

Not only was UPN one of the XFL's media partners, but this 2001 article from Media Life Magazine notes how UPN might have been a better long-term partner than NBC:
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/apr01/apr02/5_fri/news3friday.html
 
I think the original point here is that Fox gained NFL contractural rights. I also believe this was the savior of the network. Someone can argue this, but in reality, Fox is still around due to the NFL. However, earlier quality programming earned them the right to bid on this. So, the lesson is build quality programming, and then use that leverage to bid on the NFL. They won, pure and simple. ABC, ESPN still have a piece, as does NBC, but the NFL today is mainly CBS and FOX.

Bottom line, all the networks have a piece of the NFL. Perhaps that is why the NFL is the strongest brand in the country today.
 
searadiofreak said:
I think the original point here is that Fox gained NFL contractural rights. I also believe this was the savior of the network. Someone can argue this, but in reality, Fox is still around due to the NFL. However, earlier quality programming earned them the right to bid on this. So, the lesson is build quality programming, and then use that leverage to bid on the NFL. They won, pure and simple. ABC, ESPN still have a piece, as does NBC, but the NFL today is mainly CBS and FOX.

Bottom line, all the networks have a piece of the NFL. Perhaps that is why the NFL is the strongest brand in the country today.
Click to expand...

Married With Children was quality programming? :D
 
Nate Wesley said:
Without NFL football, Fox still would've been a sports TV player. It would eventually share broadcast network rights with NBC in 1995 (beginning in the '96 season), and it was the broadcast network home of the NHL* in 1994. Assuming Fox Sports' other acquisitions stay the same: Major League Baseball, NHL hockey, NASCAR, and lets add network college football for select Saturdays (which could very well be on the way)? That's still a pretty good sports slate for the 4th broadcast network.

(*For all of the grief the NHL gets for signing with the former Outdoor Life Network--perhaps its biggest mistake was leaving Fox Sports to chase ESPN dollars. Disney gave an admitted too-generous contract to pull them away, then 'low-balled' the league at renegotiation time. I think Fox would have been much more patient with hockey than ESPN/ABC, who had blown major dough to secure the NBA and MLB games beyond Sunday Night Baseball.)
Click to expand...

Fox could be on its way to getting the NBA as well if they want it bad enough. They allready have the UFC broadcast TV rights ,imagine 9-10 months (if not all-year) sports on Saturday Nights and Sundays (after the NFL Season) filled with NBA games.
 
TVCOOL said:
Nate Wesley said:
Without NFL football, Fox still would've been a sports TV player. It would eventually share broadcast network rights with NBC in 1995 (beginning in the '96 season), and it was the broadcast network home of the NHL* in 1994. Assuming Fox Sports' other acquisitions stay the same: Major League Baseball, NHL hockey, NASCAR, and lets add network college football for select Saturdays (which could very well be on the way)? That's still a pretty good sports slate for the 4th broadcast network.

(*For all of the grief the NHL gets for signing with the former Outdoor Life Network--perhaps its biggest mistake was leaving Fox Sports to chase ESPN dollars. Disney gave an admitted too-generous contract to pull them away, then 'low-balled' the league at renegotiation time. I think Fox would have been much more patient with hockey than ESPN/ABC, who had blown major dough to secure the NBA and MLB games beyond Sunday Night Baseball.)
Click to expand...

Fox could be on its way to getting the NBA as well if they want it bad enough. They allready have the UFC broadcast TV rights ,imagine 9-10 months (if not all-year) sports on Saturday Nights and Sundays (after the NFL Season) filled with NBA games.
Click to expand...

The NBA's national TV rights expire after the 2015-16 season; Turner, I believe, will surely renew its deal with the NBA, as it has a relationship that dates back nearly 30 years (pre-dating TNT's debut, but with games airing on then-"Superstation WTBS"), plus it holds the operational stake in NBA TV. If Fox goes after the NBA, it'll be the ESPN/ABC package, and that's only if Disney decides to move on to something else.

As far as the original question...if Fox didn't get the NFL in '94, I think for certain they would have gone after NBC's AFC package by 1998, which of course, ended up going to CBS. By the mid-to-late '90s, Fox had built itself into a strong challenger to the other major broadcast networks, and instead of having the massive affilation switches of '94-95 that affected CBS (where still to this day, some 17-18 years later, some markets haven't totally recovered), maybe NBC would have taken a big hit in losing affiliates, although they've done okay in those eight years in-between NFL stints.
 
nomadcowatbk said:
Married With Children was quality programming? :D
Click to expand...
It must have been. Katey Sagal has won a Golden Globe and Ed O'Neill and Christina Applegate have been nominated for Emmys.

Actually, When I looked I saw Katey was nominted for Golden Globes for THAT SHOW.
 
vchimpanzee said:
nomadcowatbk said:
Married With Children was quality programming? :D
Click to expand...
It must have been. Katey Sagal has won a Golden Globe and Ed O'Neill and Christina Applegate have been nominated for Emmys.

Actually, When I looked I saw Katey was nominted for Golden Globes for THAT SHOW.
Click to expand...

I would definitely say yes it was a quality show, as laugh out loud funny it was time and again. Hardly any sitcoms can say that now.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom