(10-09-2014 07:48 AM)mj4life Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 07:31 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It's the NBA. Let's not act like it's something fans actually watch. The NFL, The Olympics, The World Cup, 3 college basketball games and a couple college football games drew more fans than the most watched NBA game that checks in at #33.


50 Top Sporting Events 2014 to Date


Based on this small sampling it's no wonder The NBA went ala carte, nobody is watching. Nothing of nothing is still nothing.
CJ

We already know the NFL is king of the US TV market but the NBA does pull solid ratings in a desirable demographic The NBA already has the largest following of any sport outside of soccer globally. NBA China will be a 1 Billion or more property within the next 10 years. 150 million or so people have smart phones in the US, imagine if AT&T,Verizon,Sprint & T-Mobile agree to pay $1.00 per subscriber for access to these games& then multiply that by the potential global market

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/nba-grows-chin...A1MjFfMQ--

(10-08-2014 10:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 07:31 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It's the NBA. Let's not act like it's something fans actually watch. The NFL, The Olympics, The World Cup, 3 college basketball games and a couple college football games drew more fans than the most watched NBA game that checks in at #33.


50 Top Sporting Events 2014 to Date


Based on this small sampling it's no wonder The NBA went ala carte, nobody is watching. Nothing of nothing is still nothing.
CJ

It's not accurate that no one is watching. More accurate would be that the NBA is not a national event. People who watch the Bucks or Thunder watch their team but aren't so inclined to watch the Nets play the Wizards or the Raptors play the Suns.

It is more like college football in that support is highly regional with few teams moving the needle outside their region but unlike college football the volume of games available means people aren't that inclined to watch because it's on.

I know a few people who do the NHL online package but they do so because St Louis, Nashville and Chicago are out of market for Arkansas. I know more people who are NBA and MLB fans but they aren't subscribing to the current online packages because NBA considers Arkansas in market for OKC Memphis Dallas and I think San Antonio and MLB deems us in market for StL KC, Texas and Houston so they can't get the teams they want online.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Also, there's no use comparing anything to the NFL or the special event nature of the Olympics. Those two will dominate everything in the "top ratings" list. However, the NBA has become the clear #2 pro sport in the US after the NFL (the NBA Finals have been consistently beating the World Series in the ratings for years and the Stanley Cup viewership is a rounding error by comparison), it has the best international following of any US pro league by far, and it dominates all non-NFL sports in the younger demographics (age 18-49 and even more so the age 18-34), which are the ones that advertisers pay the most for. Finally, the NBA is providing that desirable content virtually every day of the week from the end of October to the middle of June - that's what ESPN and Turner are paying for. The NFL, in contrast, is 3 times per week for 4 months out of the year (and then once or twice per week for a month of playoffs), while the Olympics occur for only 2 weeks every 2 years (counting the Summer and Winter games) and the World Cup lasts for 4 weeks every 4 years. In terms of the national sports properties that can actually provide "daily" sports programming, the NBA is the most valuable one out there right now (which is why they're getting almost twice as much as the MLB is for their national package with this new deal).

The NBA is actually a fairly strong national product. People might complain that it focuses on superstars, but the flip side is that the NBA is the one sport outside of the NFL where viewers largely don't care about markets. When a superstar plays in Cleveland or Oklahoma City, then they get shown on national TV in the NBA and people will watch them nationally. Meanwhile, if the Cleveland Indians switched uniforms with the New York Yankees or East Carolina switched uniforms with Notre Dame, the teams wearing the Yankees and Notre Dame laundry will draw more viewers just because of the name brands. In essence, the NBA is the sport where the best teams actually *are* the teams that people want to watch the most nationally (which is much different than MLB, where anything that's not Yankees or Red Sox is ignored nationally, or the NHL where you need Original Six teams plus a couple of favored teams like the Penguins involved for national interest).

To be sure, MLB is still stronger when it comes to regional TV revenue. They're still a more valuable product for RSNs for the most part compared to NBA and NHL teams. However, MLB is simply no longer the national product that it used to be. Think of it this way: with Derek Jeter retiring, how many current MLB players would be recognized by the average American (meaning non-sports fans) in a national TV commercial? How many people would recognize Mike Trout (the best young player of his generation) if he was walking down the street in your hometown (even if it's Anaheim)? There are at least a couple of dozen NBA players with higher Q-ratings than the very best MLB player (which wasn't the case when I was growing up), so we're not just talking about LeBron and Kobe. That's showing where the sports TV market is headed. Once again, look at the *youth* of the NBA ratings - that's where the money is being printed. Whether people agree with it or not, younger is better in the TV. Every network would rather have a higher age 18-49 rating with a lower total rating than the other way around because that's what advertisers pay more for.

(10-09-2014 09:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Every network would rather have a higher age 18-49 rating with a lower total rating than the other way around because that's what advertisers pay more for.

That's technically correct Frank.

You are correct about the rating itself, but they will pay all the $$$ if they know the demo is super expensive. 60 Minuets(even with there super old demo that they have) proved that for years.

(10-09-2014 09:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 10:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 07:31 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It's the NBA. Let's not act like it's something fans actually watch. The NFL, The Olympics, The World Cup, 3 college basketball games and a couple college football games drew more fans than the most watched NBA game that checks in at #33.


50 Top Sporting Events 2014 to Date


Based on this small sampling it's no wonder The NBA went ala carte, nobody is watching. Nothing of nothing is still nothing.
CJ

It's not accurate that no one is watching. More accurate would be that the NBA is not a national event. People who watch the Bucks or Thunder watch their team but aren't so inclined to watch the Nets play the Wizards or the Raptors play the Suns.

It is more like college football in that support is highly regional with few teams moving the needle outside their region but unlike college football the volume of games available means people aren't that inclined to watch because it's on.

I know a few people who do the NHL online package but they do so because St Louis, Nashville and Chicago are out of market for Arkansas. I know more people who are NBA and MLB fans but they aren't subscribing to the current online packages because NBA considers Arkansas in market for OKC Memphis Dallas and I think San Antonio and MLB deems us in market for StL KC, Texas and Houston so they can't get the teams they want online.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Also, there's no use comparing anything to the NFL or the special event nature of the Olympics. Those two will dominate everything in the "top ratings" list. However, the NBA has become the clear #2 pro sport in the US after the NFL (the NBA Finals have been consistently beating the World Series in the ratings for years and the Stanley Cup viewership is a rounding error by comparison), it has the best international following of any US pro league by far, and it dominates all non-NFL sports in the younger demographics (age 18-49 and even more so the age 18-34), which are the ones that advertisers pay the most for. Finally, the NBA is providing that desirable content virtually every day of the week from the end of October to the middle of June - that's what ESPN and Turner are paying for. The NFL, in contrast, is 3 times per week for 4 months out of the year (and then once or twice per week for a month of playoffs), while the Olympics occur for only 2 weeks every 2 years (counting the Summer and Winter games) and the World Cup lasts for 4 weeks every 4 years. In terms of the national sports properties that can actually provide "daily" sports programming, the NBA is the most valuable one out there right now (which is why they're getting almost twice as much as the MLB is for their national package with this new deal).

The NBA is actually a fairly strong national product. People might complain that it focuses on superstars, but the flip side is that the NBA is the one sport outside of the NFL where viewers largely don't care about markets. When a superstar plays in Cleveland or Oklahoma City, then they get shown on national TV in the NBA and people will watch them nationally. Meanwhile, if the Cleveland Indians switched uniforms with the New York Yankees or East Carolina switched uniforms with Notre Dame, the teams wearing the Yankees and Notre Dame laundry will draw more viewers just because of the name brands. In essence, the NBA is the sport where the best teams actually *are* the teams that people want to watch the most nationally (which is much different than MLB, where anything that's not Yankees or Red Sox is ignored nationally, or the NHL where you need Original Six teams plus a couple of favored teams like the Penguins involved for national interest).

To be sure, MLB is still stronger when it comes to regional TV revenue. They're still a more valuable product for RSNs for the most part compared to NBA and NHL teams. However, MLB is simply no longer the national product that it used to be. Think of it this way: with Derek Jeter retiring, how many current MLB players would be recognized by the average American (meaning non-sports fans) in a national TV commercial? How many people would recognize Mike Trout (the best young player of his generation) if he was walking down the street in your hometown (even if it's Anaheim)? There are at least a couple of dozen NBA players with higher Q-ratings than the very best MLB player (which wasn't the case when I was growing up), so we're not just talking about LeBron and Kobe. That's showing where the sports TV market is headed. Once again, look at the *youth* of the NBA ratings - that's where the money is being printed. Whether people agree with it or not, younger is better in the TV. Every network would rather have a higher age 18-49 rating with a lower total rating than the other way around because that's what advertisers pay more for.

Frank, you probably want the big ten network to succeed and are looking for any spin either way to make you feel comfortable in a situation where the BTN could be affected. Believe it or not, there a lot of fans like me who only watch a couple channels. I pay $55 a month to get the espin channels and btn and fs1. I don't want fs1 and never requested it. I could live without btn (only watch it for wrestling) I already live without CBS-sports network, NBC-sports network and the NFL network ( all pro sports networks) I d drop btn if an al a carte let that become an option. No matter how you spin it, a la carte will destroy sec, Pac and eventually BTN. Yes, I want those networks to fail. Their terrible for college sports. Furthermore, I want the sec and Pac networks to fail because I don't like a single team in either league and I bet there's a lot of fans like me who don't want schools they dislike making extra $

(10-09-2014 11:46 AM)lance99 Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Every network would rather have a higher age 18-49 rating with a lower total rating than the other way around because that's what advertisers pay more for.

That's technically correct Frank.

You are correct about the rating itself, but they will pay all the $$$ if they know the demo is super expensive. 60 Minuets(even with there super old demo that they have) proved that for years.

Upper income, highly educated people are a very expensive demographic to reach because they don't watch as much TV as other people yet advertisers love them because they have disposible incomes to buy an Audi R8 or a Rolex "time piece".

Any time a TV program does well drawing that demo the money will flow in.

(10-09-2014 01:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:46 AM)lance99 Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Every network would rather have a higher age 18-49 rating with a lower total rating than the other way around because that's what advertisers pay more for.

That's technically correct Frank.

You are correct about the rating itself, but they will pay all the $$$ if they know the demo is super expensive. 60 Minuets(even with there super old demo that they have) proved that for years.

Upper income, highly educated people are a very expensive demographic to reach because they don't watch as much TV as other people yet advertisers love them because they have disposible incomes to buy an Audi R8 or a Rolex "time piece".

Any time a TV program does well drawing that demo the money will flow in.

And thats my point. They can use 18-34 all they want, but if you give them the super high demo that will bring them $$$(not counting the Super Bowl/Olympics), they will run to it, regardless of the acutal rating.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-09-2014 12:15 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Frank, you probably want the big ten network to succeed and are looking for any spin either way to make you feel comfortable in a situation where the BTN could be affected. Believe it or not, there a lot of fans like me who only watch a couple channels. I pay $55 a month to get the espin channels and btn and fs1. I don't want fs1 and never requested it. I could live without btn (only watch it for wrestling) I already live without CBS-sports network, NBC-sports network and the NFL network ( all pro sports networks) I d drop btn if an al a carte let that become an option. No matter how you spin it, a la carte will destroy sec, Pac and eventually BTN. Yes, I want those networks to fail. Their terrible for college sports. Furthermore, I want the sec and Pac networks to fail because I don't like a single team in either league and I bet there's a lot of fans like me who don't want schools they dislike making extra $

The comment here had nothing to do with the Big Ten. It was responding to the patently false notion that "no one" is watching the NBA and it's a situation solely dealing with the "big" channels of ESPN and TNT (as opposed to the BTN, SEC Network, etc.). Disney and Time Warner aren't spending nearly $3 billion per year for something that "no one" is watching. If people don't like the NBA (or Big Ten or SEC or whatever else), then that's personal preference. Different strokes for different folks. I would rather gouge my eyeballs out than watch MMA, yet I'm not going to sit here as an objective business person and tell you that no one is watching it and Fox ought to drop all of its coverage (as that would be a bad business decision). What I see too many times is a personal bias (for or against a situation or institution) getting in the way of the basic economics and TV ratings data involved.

(10-09-2014 01:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Upper income, highly educated people are a very expensive demographic to reach because they don't watch as much TV as other people yet advertisers love them because they have disposible incomes to buy an Audi R8 or a Rolex "time piece".

Any time a TV program does well drawing that demo the money will flow in.

Which is exactly what the NHL brings....


.

(10-09-2014 03:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 12:15 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Frank, you probably want the big ten network to succeed and are looking for any spin either way to make you feel comfortable in a situation where the BTN could be affected. Believe it or not, there a lot of fans like me who only watch a couple channels. I pay $55 a month to get the espin channels and btn and fs1. I don't want fs1 and never requested it. I could live without btn (only watch it for wrestling) I already live without CBS-sports network, NBC-sports network and the NFL network ( all pro sports networks) I d drop btn if an al a carte let that become an option. No matter how you spin it, a la carte will destroy sec, Pac and eventually BTN. Yes, I want those networks to fail. Their terrible for college sports. Furthermore, I want the sec and Pac networks to fail because I don't like a single team in either league and I bet there's a lot of fans like me who don't want schools they dislike making extra $

The comment here had nothing to do with the Big Ten. It was responding to the patently false notion that "no one" is watching the NBA and it's a situation solely dealing with the "big" channels of ESPN and TNT (as opposed to the BTN, SEC Network, etc.). Disney and Time Warner aren't spending nearly $3 billion per year for something that "no one" is watching. If people don't like the NBA (or Big Ten or SEC or whatever else), then that's personal preference. Different strokes for different folks. I would rather gouge my eyeballs out than watch MMA, yet I'm not going to sit here as an objective business person and tell you that no one is watching it and Fox ought to drop all of its coverage (as that would be a bad business decision). What I see too many times is a personal bias (for or against a situation or institution) getting in the way of the basic economics and TV ratings data involved.

Frank, I get your point but I'm saying that there's a lot of fans like me who if they find they can save $ AND take some of the very $ their saving through a la carte, then we will do that. I hate NFL. I saved little with the overall package I have but I just don't want to spend a red cent on anything NFL related. I could get PAC or SEC networks as well. Never, never will I pay for those networks and I LL go out of my way to continue to do it. Do you think I'm unique? Maybe...

Great Thursday Night Football game between Colts and Texans. Crystal clear HD and was free for me. Did you cable guys pay your $5.50 retransmissions fee this month to CBS? Thanks.


.

(10-09-2014 10:42 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Great Thursday Night Football game between Colts and Texans. Crystal clear HD and was free for me. Did you cable guys pay your $5.50 retransmissions fee this month to CBS? Thanks.


.

Actually I watched UCF-BYU go to OT on my pay TV


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-09-2014 11:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:42 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Great Thursday Night Football game between Colts and Texans. Crystal clear HD and was free for me. Did you cable guys pay your $5.50 retransmissions fee this month to CBS? Thanks.


.

Actually I watched UCF-BYU go to OT on my pay TV


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So you still payed for the CBS $5 retransmission charge even though you didn't watch it. Even better. Thanks. Had you watched it, you would have noticed that your cable TV "HD" transmission was less clear than the free antenna true hi-def broadcast because cable compresses the signal to save data transmission and antenna is pure HD straight from the source as it was meant to be viewed.

.

(10-09-2014 11:36 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:42 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Great Thursday Night Football game between Colts and Texans. Crystal clear HD and was free for me. Did you cable guys pay your $5.50 retransmissions fee this month to CBS? Thanks.


.

Actually I watched UCF-BYU go to OT on my pay TV


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So you still payed for the CBS $5 retransmission charge even though you didn't watch it. Even better. Thanks. Had you watched it, you would have noticed that your cable TV "HD" transmission was less clear than the free antenna true hi-def broadcast because cable compresses the signal to save data transmission and antenna is pure HD straight from the source as it was meant to be viewed.

.

We get it. You don't pay for cable. I want to watch Bulls, Blackhawks, White Sox and Big Ten games that are not over-the-air and don't find MAC games on ESPN3 to be an acceptable substitute, so I'm willing to pay for cable, which I can easily afford. Whatever personal value that you get from saving that money each month is great for you and fits your needs, but that doesn't somehow make it superior or applicable to others that have no desire to watch a limited number of streaming MAC games.

(10-09-2014 11:36 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:42 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Great Thursday Night Football game between Colts and Texans. Crystal clear HD and was free for me. Did you cable guys pay your $5.50 retransmissions fee this month to CBS? Thanks.


.

Actually I watched UCF-BYU go to OT on my pay TV


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So you still payed for the CBS $5 retransmission charge even though you didn't watch it. Even better. Thanks. Had you watched it, you would have noticed that your cable TV "HD" transmission was less clear than the free antenna true hi-def broadcast because cable compresses the signal to save data transmission and antenna is pure HD straight from the source as it was meant to be viewed.

.

My damn money so I spend it how I like. I could save money by darning socks but I throw em in the trash when they get a hole in them. I could save money and the environment by hanging my clothes on a line in the backyard but choose to waste money on a dryer. I could save more money by lowering my car insurance to the state minimum but I have assets to protect. I could save a bundle on housing moving closer to work but I prefer a safer neighborhood and don't want to deal with homeless guys taking a leak in my yard. I'm going to stream AState on Saturday but ESPN3 won't get me some of our upcoming games and I don't want to spend $30 at BWW to watch.

(10-09-2014 11:36 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:42 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Great Thursday Night Football game between Colts and Texans. Crystal clear HD and was free for me. Did you cable guys pay your $5.50 retransmissions fee this month to CBS? Thanks.


.

Actually I watched UCF-BYU go to OT on my pay TV


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So you still payed for the CBS $5 retransmission charge even though you didn't watch it. Even better. Thanks. Had you watched it, you would have noticed that your cable TV "HD" transmission was less clear than the free antenna true hi-def broadcast because cable compresses the signal to save data transmission and antenna is pure HD straight from the source as it was meant to be viewed.

.

If you want to make dumb comments, at least get it right. No local channel cure story gets more than $0.50 per retransmission.

By the way, how do you Kiel lakting on your $75 a month internet bill? Mine was $14.99, because I don't need th streaming bandwidth. Ill bet you any amount of money my cable and Internet bill is lower than your Internet and TV over the web services bill.

Only I get to watch the those channels. And it cost me less.

Also we'll see how well you see Thursday NFL games come week 10 ?

Internet is $29 for 15Mbps and I'll be at the gym watching TNF for free while you are on couch for 7th day of the week gaining weight being a "sports" fan. Its also OK to skip a night or two sitting on couch and do something "sports-like" by listening on radio and taking a jog instead of watching somebody else.

(10-10-2014 05:15 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Internet is $29 for 15Mbps and I'll be at the gym watching TNF for free while you are on couch for 7th day of the week gaining weight being a "sports" fan.

I think most people here know I don't take things that personally, but where the heck do you get off presuming to know anything about anyone's lifestyle habits? Is it shocking to you that people on a sports fan message board actually like watching sports? I work a ton of hours a week as a corporate lawyer, commute an hour each way, and then take care of 5-year old twins. I literally don't have a free weekend on the calendar until January with so many events and activities. I might get a couple of hours of downtime each weeknight, so I like using such downtime to watch what I actually want to watch as opposed to whatever crap show is on CBS that evening. My "downtime" last night was that I watched the TNF game and the Blackhawks game (at the same time with DirecTV picture-in-picture split screen) while running for an hour on my own treadmill at home and reading through work emails and The Economist. Get off your high horse - I might be a lot of things, but lazy isn't one of them.

(10-10-2014 05:15 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Internet is $29 for 15Mbps and I'll be at the gym watching TNF for free while you are on couch for 7th day of the week gaining weight being a "sports" fan. Its also OK to skip a night or two sitting on couch and do something "sports-like" by listening on radio and taking a jog instead of watching somebody else.

Which means that if you have either Netflix, Hulu, or amazon prime (just one not even two or all three) then you pay more thenmme for both. So by cord cutting, you still pay more. And you don't have the same amount of options. Or as I stated.

But carry on.

(10-10-2014 05:15 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Internet is $29 for 15Mbps and I'll be at the gym watching TNF for free while you are on couch for 7th day of the week gaining weight being a "sports" fan.

Do you have a "free" gym membership? Because unless you do, you're not watching those sports for free.

(10-10-2014 05:15 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Internet is $29 for 15Mbps and I'll be at the gym watching TNF for free while you are on couch for 7th day of the week gaining weight being a "sports" fan. Its also OK to skip a night or two sitting on couch and do something "sports-like" by listening on radio and taking a jog instead of watching somebody else.

Interesting take....FTR, don't "assume" what people on this board lifestyle habits are...Workout 6 Days a Week with one relax/cheat day on Sunday...Age Mid 40's current Body Fat around 8%....just because you "cut the cord" doesn't make you better then anyone else...

(10-12-2014 10:23 PM)moo Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 05:15 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Internet is $29 for 15Mbps and I'll be at the gym watching TNF for free while you are on couch for 7th day of the week gaining weight being a "sports" fan.

Do you have a "free" gym membership? Because unless you do, you're not watching those sports for free.

Exactly...For an example Membership at the Louisville Athletic Club is $20 a Month...have to assume you go to the gym for the simple reason you must Interval and Weight Train...