(05-02-2016 01:51 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:15 AM)Maize Wrote:  Here are the links:

Trent Dilfer...NFL
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footba...-1.2619936

Brad Nessler...College Football
https://www.seccountry.com/sec-news/repo...o-join-cbs

I think it's pretty obvious they are clearing out cap space so they can sign the ACC to a Network deal that will pay even more than the SEC and B1G are making.

I think that's pretty laughable!

Um, you missed the deadpan humor? :)

My insider he goes by the name BIM (Big Independent Man) says that ESPN will be converting the SEC Network to the ACC network

That panning of the Flug was well done and earned you three rating points....

(05-02-2016 01:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  As a big investor in Disney, where is this network going? Can anyone give me some insights? I am glad they are cutting costs with some of these overpaid commentators. There isn't enough NFL and college content to support all these guys, but who will be replacing these guys? Nessler is a good play by play guy. Will ratings suffer if they can't get a viable replacement for the games he calls?

Musberger is also getting old. They need a solid play by play guy besides Fowler.

I think the NBA ratings will be solid this year, but I'm worried about them overpaying for college content, as well as the NFL personalities.

Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

Do announcers affect ratings in any manner? If so, then I am surprised again.

For instance, would less people tune into Alabama v. LSU if Pat Haden were the color guy?

(05-02-2016 02:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 01:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  In some of the cases, ESPN was just outbid (such as Bayless). But also ESPN simply has WAAAAAYYY too many announcers on payroll. I mean they literally have 31 guys on payroll now who are listed as NFL analysts who are not the game broadcasters. They have about 190 personalities on the network, and this is not including game announcers, sportscenter anchors, guys on shows like Mike and Mike or First take, etc. These guys make varying salaries ranging from probably $150k per year to $1MM per year. If you are a company trying to tighten the belt, to please your overlords, this is a great place to start.

This jibes with what I've come to think. Any time there is a sports story of any kind, ESPN rolls out a panel of 8 "analysts" to give their take on it. I sometimes feel like I'm watching a live broadcast of Supreme Court deliberations or a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Does it really take 3 broadcasters, 3 ex-players, 2 former coaches, and 2 long-legged women to "analyze" Dwayne Wade tweeting something that might or might not have been critical of James Harden's shoe contract?

Those two alone might just well be sufficient for ratings.

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 01:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  As a big investor in Disney, where is this network going? Can anyone give me some insights? I am glad they are cutting costs with some of these overpaid commentators. There isn't enough NFL and college content to support all these guys, but who will be replacing these guys? Nessler is a good play by play guy. Will ratings suffer if they can't get a viable replacement for the games he calls?

Musberger is also getting old. They need a solid play by play guy besides Fowler.

I think the NBA ratings will be solid this year, but I'm worried about them overpaying for college content, as well as the NFL personalities.

Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

Do announcers affect ratings in any manner? If so, then I am surprised again.

For instance, would less people tune into Alabama v. LSU if Pat Haden were the color guy?

Nope, just like me they may find the mute button very attractive(Radio announcers are good).

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

If there are two games on that I have no vested interest in, the network and/or announces do influence which ones I tune into it. Network due to sound quality (some networks are better than others in terms of properly mic'ing the field). Also the announcers themselves, indicate which "level" the game is, and the number of camera angles, etc.


Watch a game on SEC Network, Big Ten Network, or ESPN News, vs. ESPN or CBS and you can see the difference.

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 01:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  As a big investor in Disney, where is this network going? Can anyone give me some insights? I am glad they are cutting costs with some of these overpaid commentators. There isn't enough NFL and college content to support all these guys, but who will be replacing these guys? Nessler is a good play by play guy. Will ratings suffer if they can't get a viable replacement for the games he calls?

Musberger is also getting old. They need a solid play by play guy besides Fowler.

I think the NBA ratings will be solid this year, but I'm worried about them overpaying for college content, as well as the NFL personalities.

Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

Do announcers affect ratings in any manner? If so, then I am surprised again.

For instance, would less people tune into Alabama v. LSU if Pat Haden were the color guy?

I believe that presentation matters. Look at how bad the Thom Brenneman NC games were at Fox before ESPN scooped up the broadcast rights. Thom forgot what down it was when OU was at the goal line against Florida. Hearing Joe Buck doing golf was also a little dicey at times too. I want the best of the best and the guys I've grown accustom to. It matters with the die hard fans.

(05-02-2016 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:15 AM)Maize Wrote:  Here are the links:

Trent Dilfer...NFL
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footba...-1.2619936

Brad Nessler...College Football
https://www.seccountry.com/sec-news/repo...o-join-cbs

I think it's pretty obvious they are clearing out cap space so they can sign the ACC to a Network deal that will pay even more than the SEC and B1G are making.

I think that's pretty laughable!

Um, you missed the deadpan humor? :)

Sorry Quo. I didn't know there was any humor left on this board! It's easy to miss these days.

Nessler is a big loss for ESPN but a huge gain for anyone seeking to watch SEC on CBS! Lundquist is quite possibly the worst PBP in sports. Nessler is one of the best. Send Verne into retirement ASAP.

Also, does this mean they will promote Mussberger back up from the SEC Network relegation he has been subject to for the past 2 years?

(05-02-2016 02:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

If there are two games on that I have no vested interest in, the network and/or announces do influence which ones I tune into it. Network due to sound quality (some networks are better than others in terms of properly mic'ing the field). Also the announcers themselves, indicate which "level" the game is, and the number of camera angles, etc.


Watch a game on SEC Network, Big Ten Network, or ESPN News, vs. ESPN or CBS and you can see the difference.

I have never seen a game on the first three you list, so you may be right.

When I watch a game, it is to see the teams, not listen/see the announcers, though.

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 01:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  As a big investor in Disney, where is this network going? Can anyone give me some insights? I am glad they are cutting costs with some of these overpaid commentators. There isn't enough NFL and college content to support all these guys, but who will be replacing these guys? Nessler is a good play by play guy. Will ratings suffer if they can't get a viable replacement for the games he calls?

Musberger is also getting old. They need a solid play by play guy besides Fowler.

I think the NBA ratings will be solid this year, but I'm worried about them overpaying for college content, as well as the NFL personalities.

Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

Do announcers affect ratings in any manner? If so, then I am surprised again.

For instance, would less people tune into Alabama v. LSU if Pat Haden were the color guy?

I usually mute the games.

I wish they could televise with just the stadium noise and some graphics (down and distance, the first down line, etc.).

Same for all sports.

I'm always surprised at the number of people who comment on who will be in the booth prior to a game (usually involving their school).

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 01:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  As a big investor in Disney, where is this network going? Can anyone give me some insights? I am glad they are cutting costs with some of these overpaid commentators. There isn't enough NFL and college content to support all these guys, but who will be replacing these guys? Nessler is a good play by play guy. Will ratings suffer if they can't get a viable replacement for the games he calls?

Musberger is also getting old. They need a solid play by play guy besides Fowler.

I think the NBA ratings will be solid this year, but I'm worried about them overpaying for college content, as well as the NFL personalities.

Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

Do announcers affect ratings in any manner? If so, then I am surprised again.

For instance, would less people tune into Alabama v. LSU if Pat Haden were the color guy?

For Vin Scully, yes.

That NBA contract is already putting a hurt on ESPN

I've never tuned into a game just to hear the announcer, except for the Dennis Miller MNF debut.

I've never turned off a game due to the announcer, but I have hit the mute button a time or two.

(05-02-2016 12:03 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  ESPN doesn't have much free capital to throw around right now. They overspent. They are going to have to cutback.....they have no other choice unless they want to go bankrupt. They are going to lose some big names from an employee side and also what they can broadcast for content.

Translation = they reached their peak and will have to level off.

Tons of young bucks/buckettes coming out of Syracuse, Northwestern, Maryland, Missouri every year...no need to pay a crapton for the Nesslers...

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 01:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  As a big investor in Disney, where is this network going? Can anyone give me some insights? I am glad they are cutting costs with some of these overpaid commentators. There isn't enough NFL and college content to support all these guys, but who will be replacing these guys? Nessler is a good play by play guy. Will ratings suffer if they can't get a viable replacement for the games he calls?

Musberger is also getting old. They need a solid play by play guy besides Fowler.

I think the NBA ratings will be solid this year, but I'm worried about them overpaying for college content, as well as the NFL personalities.

Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

Do announcers affect ratings in any manner? If so, then I am surprised again.

For instance, would less people tune into Alabama v. LSU if Pat Haden were the color guy?

YES!!!

There are many ACC basketball games on in Greensboro that come on both ESPN and The ACC network (Raycom broadcasts). I always listen to the ACC network broadcasts because the announcers are better than ESPN's.

(05-02-2016 11:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:15 AM)Maize Wrote:  Here are the links:

Trent Dilfer...NFL
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footba...-1.2619936

Brad Nessler...College Football
https://www.seccountry.com/sec-news/repo...o-join-cbs

I think it's pretty obvious they are clearing out cap space so they can sign the ACC to a Network deal that will pay even more than the SEC and B1G are making.

I think that's pretty laughable! ESPN doesn't have to spend money to create the ACCN. They have 1 unused channel dedicated to the SECN and the LHN they can convert.

What ESPN will go after is Texas and Oklahoma in one of their two conferences and they will attempt to lure the Irish all in. Why? Because they don't need another conference, another network, or a new rights deal. All they need moving forward is branding, which is one reason they didn't bid big on the Big 10.

The economy and technology are changing the payout paradigm for college sports. Branding on branding to generate national appeal is the payday for the future. ESPN has access to 6 of the top 10 right now. With Oklahoma that would be 7. Get Texas into an ESPN exclusive contract and Notre Dame all in and access becomes rights to 7 of the top 10 revenue generators. But what's even better is that have access or rights to 8 of the next 10.

The Big 10 was selling investment in 14 programs only 6 of which are interesting to the nation as a whole. So they took a pass. The PAC is weak in branding. But the brands they have are leased by ESPN at 50% and FOX at 50% and the PACN doesn't pay out much because (a) they can't get enough carriage, and (b) they can't penetrate their own market because West coasters aren't wrapped up in college sports for their entertainment.

So ESPN doesn't have to do anything but concentrate on those three schools and maybe add a 1 tag a long to get them landed.

When they form an ACCN I would think the idea of packaging them across the combined footprints of the ACC & SEC would net the SEC more, and put the ACC within a range of revenue that keeps them from being vulnerable. They aren't going to pass the SEC in revenue because they don't have the metrics to merit it.

ESPN will do enough to secure its two prize conferences which still account for the best football, and arguably the best basketball (within the P5 as the Big East deserves its due) and will concentrate on creating schedules that maximize content value across all money sports by pitting the two against each other.

That's all they need to do to dominate the national market and by cutting the overhead for things that don't produce revenue (talking heads) they are well on their way to bringing this in on budget.

How many programs that are cared about nation wide in both the ACC and SEC? Bama, Florida, LSU and who else? Missouri? Miss St? Ole Miss? Tennessee? Kentucky? Georgia? South Carolina? A&M? In the ACC it's even worse. It's FSU and thats it. Sorry Clemson fans, but you aren't in that top tier. The B1G has just as many if not more than the other top conferences.

Attempt to lure the Irish in? The Irish don't want to be in and if they did it wouldn't be the ACC. If the day comes when the Irish decide to join a conference they will join the one with the most clout and who pays the best.

(05-02-2016 04:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  That NBA contract is already putting a hurt on ESPN

The NBA is ESPN's third best property behind Monday Night Football, College Football Playoff.

(05-02-2016 12:03 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  ESPN doesn't have much free capital to throw around right now. They overspent. They are going to have to cutback.....they have no other choice unless they want to go bankrupt. They are going to lose some big names from an employee side and also what they can broadcast for content.

Translation = they reached their peak and will have to level off.

That doesn't mean that at all. I agree that ESPN has over spent and are trying to get their house in order. Losing over priced Big 10 rights will save them money. Cutting loose over priced talking heads. Will save them money. But this is money that they can use to reinvest in other areas and other talent.

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 01:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  As a big investor in Disney, where is this network going? Can anyone give me some insights? I am glad they are cutting costs with some of these overpaid commentators. There isn't enough NFL and college content to support all these guys, but who will be replacing these guys? Nessler is a good play by play guy. Will ratings suffer if they can't get a viable replacement for the games he calls?

Musberger is also getting old. They need a solid play by play guy besides Fowler.

I think the NBA ratings will be solid this year, but I'm worried about them overpaying for college content, as well as the NFL personalities.

Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

Do announcers affect ratings in any manner? If so, then I am surprised again.

For instance, would less people tune into Alabama v. LSU if Pat Haden were the color guy?

I think the last announcer who had that kind of pull (for positive & negative reasons) was Howard Cosell. But I may be dating myself here...

(05-02-2016 11:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 11:15 AM)Maize Wrote:  Here are the links:

Trent Dilfer...NFL
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footba...-1.2619936

Brad Nessler...College Football
https://www.seccountry.com/sec-news/repo...o-join-cbs

I think it's pretty obvious they are clearing out cap space so they can sign the ACC to a Network deal that will pay even more than the SEC and B1G are making.

I think that's pretty laughable! ESPN doesn't have to spend money to create the ACCN. They have 1 unused channel dedicated to the SECN and the LHN they can convert.

What ESPN will go after is Texas and Oklahoma in one of their two conferences and they will attempt to lure the Irish all in. Why? Because they don't need another conference, another network, or a new rights deal. All they need moving forward is branding, which is one reason they didn't bid big on the Big 10.

The economy and technology are changing the payout paradigm for college sports. Branding on branding to generate national appeal is the payday for the future. ESPN has access to 6 of the top 10 right now. With Oklahoma that would be 7. Get Texas into an ESPN exclusive contract and Notre Dame all in and access becomes rights to 7 of the top 10 revenue generators. But what's even better is that have access or rights to 8 of the next 10.

The Big 10 was selling investment in 14 programs only 6 of which are interesting to the nation as a whole. So they took a pass. The PAC is weak in branding. But the brands they have are leased by ESPN at 50% and FOX at 50% and the PACN doesn't pay out much because (a) they can't get enough carriage, and (b) they can't penetrate their own market because West coasters aren't wrapped up in college sports for their entertainment.

So ESPN doesn't have to do anything but concentrate on those three schools and maybe add a 1 tag a long to get them landed.

When they form an ACCN I would think the idea of packaging them across the combined footprints of the ACC & SEC would net the SEC more, and put the ACC within a range of revenue that keeps them from being vulnerable. They aren't going to pass the SEC in revenue because they don't have the metrics to merit it.

ESPN will do enough to secure its two prize conferences which still account for the best football, and arguably the best basketball (within the P5 as the Big East deserves its due) and will concentrate on creating schedules that maximize content value across all money sports by pitting the two against each other.

That's all they need to do to dominate the national market and by cutting the overhead for things that don't produce revenue (talking heads) they are well on their way to bringing this in on budget.

JR, that's about as well reasoned an argument one can make here. I wish I understood the television industry more, but protecting and growing brand is something that cuts across all industries including my own in Higher Ed Publishing.