(10-16-2015 07:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I was referring to NYC being "cut short" because of stations in CT and Philly impuning on their CSA as part of their TV market.

Not trying to be a jerk, but the word you're looking for is impinge or maybe auto-correct did you in. The counties included at the fringes of CSAs has little to do with connection to central cities in the related MSA. Allentown isn't in any meaningful way part of the NYC metro area. The Steelers and Eagles split the market for NFL interest. However the number of people who commute into NJ counties meets the threshold for inclusion to the NYC CSA so Allentown was added in 2010. It's much closer to the broadcast towers in Philadelphia that's why it's part of the Philly DMA.

Newark and Trenton are less than 20 air miles afrom the broadcast towers in NYC and Philly. Wilmington is similarly close to Philly. That's one reason why OTA stations weren't established those cities. New haven, which has the closest (75 miles) OTA stations to NYC in CT is a fairly recent addition to the NYC CSA. It's pretty evenly divided between NY teams and Pats fans whereas in Fairfield county which is closer to NYC the NY teams have a majority of the fans.

(10-16-2015 02:10 PM)brista21 Wrote:  And closed temporarily thanks to some very strange bickering.

Update: We're back now that its all cleaned up.

Why do I always miss the good stuff?

(10-16-2015 09:35 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  FS1 really needs to get on hotel cable systems. I travel quite a bit and most places I stay still don't carry FS1.

I was in a hotel Weds/Thursday nights that had every channel but FS1

(10-16-2015 04:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  We're actually in year 3 now! Been 26 months now. It's improved a lot- but still has a long ways to go. Studio programming is an absolute dumpster fire- with the exception of their Friday night college football preview.

We should expect organic growth just from people getting more used to checking out programming where they have not previously been used to for the first four to five years, at which point it'll be down to what content they have and what position in the line-up that has earned them.

Of course, the title of this thread does little toward promoting calm, considered discussion ... no, the viewership has not been "Outstanding", but relative to the hand they were dealt, it's an improvement on what they would have been able to get this time last year.

If FS1 is getting good ratings, but new big east basketball still isn't, wouldn't that be a pretty large indictment of the interest in the new big east?

You may not be saying what you think you are.

(10-16-2015 11:29 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  If FS1 is getting good ratings, but new big east basketball still isn't, wouldn't that be a pretty large indictment of the interest in the new big east?

You may not be saying what you think you are.

They may be finding out there is a benefit to being an all year sports conference. When you have football it keeps your name out there.

(10-16-2015 11:29 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  If FS1 is getting good ratings, but new big east basketball still isn't, wouldn't that be a pretty large indictment of the interest in the new big east?

You may not be saying what you think you are.

Well, please keep in mind that FS1 is starving for content during the winter. Look at this years FS1 televised Big East schedule. They are showing games that feature Big East teams against the likes of Wagner, IUPUI, Northern Kentucky etc.....Who the hell would watch those games other than fans of those Big East teams? Those type of games would be relegated to ESPN3 yet they will be shown on FS1. Those games will get horrible ratings yet at the end of the year, people will average those ratings and say the Big East gets poor ratings. Sure, that is not the only reason for "lower ratings" but it is a factor.

(10-17-2015 09:47 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 11:29 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  If FS1 is getting good ratings, but new big east basketball still isn't, wouldn't that be a pretty large indictment of the interest in the new big east?

You may not be saying what you think you are.

Well, please keep in mind that FS1 is starving for content during the winter. Look at this years FS1 televised Big East schedule. They are showing games that feature Big East teams against the likes of Wagner, IUPUI, Northern Kentucky etc.....Who the hell would watch those games other than fans of those Big East teams? Those type of games would be relegated to ESPN3 yet they will be shown on FS1. Those games will get horrible ratings yet at the end of the year, people will average those ratings and say the Big East gets poor ratings. Sure, that is not the only reason for "lower ratings" but it is a factor.

Very good point. The Big East has amazing coverage since these types of games are shown nation wide. Xavier-Northern KY will be broadcast nation wide while Kentucky-NJIT will be on WatchESPN and alternate SEC Network. Big East really hit a homerun for exposure with the Fox deal.

In fact, for schools that get stuck on the conference networks - BTN, Pac-12 Net and SEC Network - they get less coverage than the Big East since those networks aren't as distributed and casual fans will rarely ever watch those channels. Doubt many folks in Atlanta will stumble on BTN or Pac 12 network, but they will has FS1 along with SEC Network and ESPN.

(10-18-2015 09:51 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 09:47 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 11:29 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  If FS1 is getting good ratings, but new big east basketball still isn't, wouldn't that be a pretty large indictment of the interest in the new big east?

You may not be saying what you think you are.

Well, please keep in mind that FS1 is starving for content during the winter. Look at this years FS1 televised Big East schedule. They are showing games that feature Big East teams against the likes of Wagner, IUPUI, Northern Kentucky etc.....Who the hell would watch those games other than fans of those Big East teams? Those type of games would be relegated to ESPN3 yet they will be shown on FS1. Those games will get horrible ratings yet at the end of the year, people will average those ratings and say the Big East gets poor ratings. Sure, that is not the only reason for "lower ratings" but it is a factor.

Very good point. The Big East has amazing coverage since these types of games are shown nation wide. Xavier-Northern KY will be broadcast nation wide while Kentucky-NJIT will be on WatchESPN and alternate SEC Network. Big East really hit a homerun for exposure with the Fox deal.

In fact, for schools that get stuck on the conference networks - BTN, Pac-12 Net and SEC Network - they get less coverage than the Big East since those networks aren't as distributed and casual fans will rarely ever watch those channels. Doubt many folks in Atlanta will stumble on BTN or Pac 12 network, but they will has FS1 along with SEC Network and ESPN.

The thing is, not all the games are stuck on the conference networks.

Also- I'm sorry but as the numbers have shown- Xavier-Northern Kentucky being on TV hasn't meant anything. 17 Big East OOC games last year on FS1 had 41k viewers or less(with a lot more games on FS2 or on FS1 but getting in 45k viewers). So while they're shown nation wide- no one in the nation is watching.

His point is that Xavier vs. Northern Kentucky gets national coverage. The ratings for that will probably be horrible (<50k) but 50k watching is better than 5k watching on ESPN3.

Game 2 of the ALCS got only a 1.9 rating, a rating that might be the lowest LCS game EVER.

(10-18-2015 04:23 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  His point is that Xavier vs. Northern Kentucky gets national coverage. The ratings for that will probably be horrible (<50k) but 50k watching is better than 5k watching on ESPN3.

One thing that has changed this year- those ESPN3 games are now going to be shown in large part on what used to be the ESPN Full Court package(similar to what has happened with football).

Although for the specific one, the Kentucky-NJIT game would still get since it's on SEC Alternate very possibly more than 50k viewers anyways.

Also- the Xavier/Northern Kentucky game was scheduled pretty dumb- it's on a Monday night- going up against Buffalo/New England(which should be one of if not the best MNF games of the season).

(10-20-2015 08:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Game 2 of the ALCS got only a 1.9 rating, a rating that might be the lowest LCS game EVER.

Maybe I'm missing something, but 1.9 seems pretty decent on a Sat afternoon with tons of football on, all things considered. Better than even some games on the ESPN mother ship. Sure when you compare to previous baseball on OTA or established cable networks it's ratings lag behind. But the question is if that is a fair comparison. When you compare to the other new cable sports networks launched in the last few years, its doing really well. It's takes time and money to build a brand.

(10-20-2015 09:10 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(10-20-2015 08:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Game 2 of the ALCS got only a 1.9 rating, a rating that might be the lowest LCS game EVER.

Maybe I'm missing something, but 1.9 seems pretty decent on a Sat afternoon with tons of football on, all things considered. Better than even some games on the ESPN mother ship. Sure when you compare to previous baseball on OTA or established cable networks it's ratings lag behind. But the question is if that is a fair comparison. When you compare to the other new cable sports networks launched in the last few years, its doing really well. It's takes time and money to build a brand.

Baseball has been on cable for 10 years now doing the LCS and this was the worst one ever. 1.9 is dreadful.

(10-16-2015 07:09 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is based off of old OTA TV coverage, from local TV stations. Some markets get cut short, such as Miami, SF, and NYC, because of nearby TV stations in smaller nearby markets. Philly TV stations just historically covered more ground than many similar sized cities, similar to LA and years ago a market like St. Louis, whose radio market used to be most of the western US

NJ and DE do not have commercial OTA stations and NJ has almost 9 million residents. That's what makes NYC and Philly DMA's larger than they would otherwise be.

Yes, exactly. I was going to mention that's a huge reason why the Philly TV market in particular is larger than what its metro area would suggest. In contrast, some of the edges of the Chicago metro area (as defined by the Census bureau) are part of adjacent TV markets (part of Northwest Indiana is in the South Bend TV market, Southern Wisconsin is in the Milwaukee TV market, and some of the far northwest suburbs are in the Rockford TV market). So, the Chicago TV market size is actually a little smaller than what its metro area population would suggest. For sports purposes, though, these are all hardcore Chicago sports fan territories (with the exception of the Wisconsin/Illinois line being a hard separation between Bears and Packers fans).

(10-20-2015 09:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Also- the Xavier/Northern Kentucky game was scheduled pretty dumb- it's on a Monday night- going up against Buffalo/New England(which should be one of if not the best MNF games of the season).

To be fair, every network has to show *something* against the NFL or else they'll just have to completely give up broadcasting on 3 out of the 7 days of the week on Sundays, Mondays and Thursdays. It's almost not worth comparing the ratings of anything (whether it's a sporting event or any other type of entertainment programming) against the NFL anymore. We basically have two standards of TV ratings: NFL games and then everything else.

(10-16-2015 12:48 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 12:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem though is realistically, Fox can't take the entire Big Ten package. Just don't have the room that the entire package would require for football. Big Ten isn't putting games on FS2 or FX. Contractually can't move at least Pac 12 games and I would assume Big 12 games.

We don't need to rehash this discussion, but you are really the only one who feels that way. Most everyone else sees it working. So for the time being, assume it can work, so that we don't have to rehash this again. So that said, the point is, in order to maximize their revenue, the Big Ten HAS to sell it as one package, and force ESPN and Fox to bid against each other and drive up the price, or they will divide and evenly split it like they did with the Big 12, and have no need to try to keep raising the price.

The NFL and NBA were able to garner increases without the open market because has a known suitor on the sidelines waiting to jump in (NBC Sports and FS1 for Thursday night football, and Fox for the NBA) to allow them to garner increases without open bidding. The Big Ten currently has no credible third suitor than anyone realistically believes they will consider. UNLESS there is a credible third bidder, like the PAC 12 have (NBC), they will lose on potential gains unless they sell it is as one package, so have one less package than bidders. . But I don't think NBC would be looked at as a credible third bidder at this point, so the only way there is a third bidder is if CBS and Turner team up again like they did for the NCAA tournament. And even then, CBS' refusal to open up the SEC contract and buy more games, suggests to me that they probably don't want to get into that sort of high stakes war.

This is an interesting argument, but I don't necessarily agree that the Big Ten has to sell its package to only one party in order to maximize its revenue. Indeed, the Pac-12 and Big 12 were both able to garner much more by splitting their packages between ESPN and Fox while we also see the NFL, NBA and MLB being successful doing it that way, as well. A third bidder can certainly drive up the price, but it's not really necessary. Both ESPN and Fox have a real risk of ending up with *nothing* from the Big Ten, which is bad for both of them. We saw ESPN and Turner pay a ton to the NBA with split packages not only because they didn't want to let Fox in on the action, but also that they had a huge void in the event that they got shut out of the NBA entirely. So, I could easily see the Big Ten end up with a "1 + 1 = 3" scenario because the value of getting at least a partial package for each of ESPN and Fox is so critical that they would pay up (especially since the offering of partial packages is also where NBC and CBS/Turner could step in much more easily for other bids on their own).

(10-20-2015 10:08 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 12:48 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 12:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem though is realistically, Fox can't take the entire Big Ten package. Just don't have the room that the entire package would require for football. Big Ten isn't putting games on FS2 or FX. Contractually can't move at least Pac 12 games and I would assume Big 12 games.

We don't need to rehash this discussion, but you are really the only one who feels that way. Most everyone else sees it working. So for the time being, assume it can work, so that we don't have to rehash this again. So that said, the point is, in order to maximize their revenue, the Big Ten HAS to sell it as one package, and force ESPN and Fox to bid against each other and drive up the price, or they will divide and evenly split it like they did with the Big 12, and have no need to try to keep raising the price.

The NFL and NBA were able to garner increases without the open market because has a known suitor on the sidelines waiting to jump in (NBC Sports and FS1 for Thursday night football, and Fox for the NBA) to allow them to garner increases without open bidding. The Big Ten currently has no credible third suitor than anyone realistically believes they will consider. UNLESS there is a credible third bidder, like the PAC 12 have (NBC), they will lose on potential gains unless they sell it is as one package, so have one less package than bidders. . But I don't think NBC would be looked at as a credible third bidder at this point, so the only way there is a third bidder is if CBS and Turner team up again like they did for the NCAA tournament. And even then, CBS' refusal to open up the SEC contract and buy more games, suggests to me that they probably don't want to get into that sort of high stakes war.

This is an interesting argument, but I don't necessarily agree that the Big Ten has to sell its package to only one party in order to maximize its revenue. Indeed, the Pac-12 and Big 12 were both able to garner much more by splitting their packages between ESPN and Fox while we also see the NFL, NBA and MLB being successful doing it that way, as well. A third bidder can certainly drive up the price, but it's not really necessary. Both ESPN and Fox have a real risk of ending up with *nothing* from the Big Ten, which is bad for both of them. We saw ESPN and Turner pay a ton to the NBA with split packages not only because they didn't want to let Fox in on the action, but also that they had a huge void in the event that they got shut out of the NBA entirely. So, I could easily see the Big Ten end up with a "1 + 1 = 3" scenario because the value of getting at least a partial package for each of ESPN and Fox is so critical that they would pay up (especially since the offering of partial packages is also where NBC and CBS/Turner could step in much more easily for other bids on their own).

Do we know whether ESPN and Fox have an exclusive negotiating period with the Big Ten (as they did with the Pac) before the TV rights open up to other bidders?

(10-20-2015 10:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-20-2015 10:08 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 12:48 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 12:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem though is realistically, Fox can't take the entire Big Ten package. Just don't have the room that the entire package would require for football. Big Ten isn't putting games on FS2 or FX. Contractually can't move at least Pac 12 games and I would assume Big 12 games.

We don't need to rehash this discussion, but you are really the only one who feels that way. Most everyone else sees it working. So for the time being, assume it can work, so that we don't have to rehash this again. So that said, the point is, in order to maximize their revenue, the Big Ten HAS to sell it as one package, and force ESPN and Fox to bid against each other and drive up the price, or they will divide and evenly split it like they did with the Big 12, and have no need to try to keep raising the price.

The NFL and NBA were able to garner increases without the open market because has a known suitor on the sidelines waiting to jump in (NBC Sports and FS1 for Thursday night football, and Fox for the NBA) to allow them to garner increases without open bidding. The Big Ten currently has no credible third suitor than anyone realistically believes they will consider. UNLESS there is a credible third bidder, like the PAC 12 have (NBC), they will lose on potential gains unless they sell it is as one package, so have one less package than bidders. . But I don't think NBC would be looked at as a credible third bidder at this point, so the only way there is a third bidder is if CBS and Turner team up again like they did for the NCAA tournament. And even then, CBS' refusal to open up the SEC contract and buy more games, suggests to me that they probably don't want to get into that sort of high stakes war.

This is an interesting argument, but I don't necessarily agree that the Big Ten has to sell its package to only one party in order to maximize its revenue. Indeed, the Pac-12 and Big 12 were both able to garner much more by splitting their packages between ESPN and Fox while we also see the NFL, NBA and MLB being successful doing it that way, as well. A third bidder can certainly drive up the price, but it's not really necessary. Both ESPN and Fox have a real risk of ending up with *nothing* from the Big Ten, which is bad for both of them. We saw ESPN and Turner pay a ton to the NBA with split packages not only because they didn't want to let Fox in on the action, but also that they had a huge void in the event that they got shut out of the NBA entirely. So, I could easily see the Big Ten end up with a "1 + 1 = 3" scenario because the value of getting at least a partial package for each of ESPN and Fox is so critical that they would pay up (especially since the offering of partial packages is also where NBC and CBS/Turner could step in much more easily for other bids on their own).

Do we know whether ESPN and Fox have an exclusive negotiating period with the Big Ten (as they did with the Pac) before the TV rights open up to other bidders?

Fox doesn't have an exclusive negotiating period, as they don't hold the rights that are coming up for bid.