NBC Sports

[Lithium858]

I wrote this thread in the "other sports" section and was suggested I put here insted. So here what i said:

It seems like NBC is getting back into the sports scene again. Not like they were out of it, but they are covering big sports events more often. Is there any reason for that? I think it's weird how they showed The Daytona 500 (or whatever NASCAR race it was), the Kentucky Derby, the U.S. Open, the French Open and Wimbledon. Most of them received really high ratings. Then they signed a contract with the NHL for a decent price. Now my question is, do you think they will ever show the NBA, NFL or MLB again? Especially the way MLB is on the rise in ratings and TV revenue I think that would be the best deal of the three. Afterall, NBC was the first network to show the Fall Classic.

(I'm not sure where I should have posted this thread so I just put here.)

[da_cfo]

I wrote this thread in the "other sports" section and was suggested I put here insted. So here what i said:

NBC paid NOTHING for the NHL TV contract. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. NIL.

NBC also paid NOTHING for Arena Football, Pro Rodeo, and tournament poker.

NBC is no longer in the business of paying rights fees for most pro team sports, most of which can't get the ratings to justify the rights fees.

As for MLS: it will be buying or bartering for TV time for the forseeable future, i.e. the next 5 to 10 years.

[DAGSports]

Yep....

NBC knows how to make a profit on the Olympics (they've never said exactly how but it does go beyond just showing what people want to see in prime-time).

As for NASCAR, it is a combination of sports and commercials. NBC can easily sell more than enough advertising to avoid losing a lot of money- they lose money but not so much that they would not consider renewing the rights.

For golf, the event title sponsor (when applicable) and equipment manufacturers buy plenty of ad inventory.

I do see NBC as a player for MLB in the future because there is almost no way FOX will pay anywhere near what they do under the current deal in the future. But MLB will want a network to partner with ESPN, however ABC is too busy rebuilding its network (two very bad years of prime-time ratings in a row) to be interested.

[Lithium858]

I do see NBC as a player for MLB in the future because there is almost no way FOX will pay anywhere near what they do under the current deal in the future. But MLB will want a network to partner with ESPN, however ABC is too busy rebuilding its network (two very bad years of prime-time ratings in a row) to be interested.
It seems like NBC and ESPN partner up a little already. At least for their tennis coverage. From what I've seen, NBC does a great job covering it and some of the commentators are used on both networks. I'm not entirely sure though, as I haven't watch enough to come to that conclusion. JP Delacamera who obviously works for ESPN/ABC will be calling soccer for the NBC networks this summer too.

As for baseball, I sure do hope NBC airs it again. I can't stand Fox's coverage when it comes to post season. MLB needs to lower their rights fees though because they would get more coverage that way on multiple networks. They could easily get money in other areas. CBS should start to beef up their sports coverage too.

[geordienation]

As for baseball, I sure do hope NBC airs it again. I can't stand Fox's coverage when it comes to post season. MLB needs to lower their rights fees though because they would get more coverage that way on multiple networks. They could easily get money in other areas. CBS should start to beef up their sports coverage too.


MLB will lower their rights fees, but only because nobody will pay them. As for the multiple networks, exclusivity is more valuable. If I'm FOX, why would I pay for something that you can see elsewhere?

As for the "they could easily get their money in other areas" theory of sports broadcast rights . . . these aren't charities we're talking about. NBC took losses on the NFL on their last contract under that theory and decided it just wasn't worth it.

CBS has a ton of sports coverage: NFL, college football, college basketball including the NCAA tournament, two out of four of golf's Majors and more than half of the PGA events and the US Open tennis tournament. How would you suggest they beef things up?

[TOTC]

NBC paid a gazillion dollars (what is that in rupees?) for the Olympics through 2010 and has been trying to justify it with the Triple Cast, "plausibly live," The Complete Olympics, and The Even More Complete Olympics with sports on Bravo -- an arts network. Go figure!

[monster]

NBC paid a gazillion dollars (what is that in rupees?) for the Olympics through 2010 and has been trying to justify it with the Triple Cast, "plausibly live," The Complete Olympics, and The Even More Complete Olympics with sports on Bravo -- an arts network. Go figure!
And they make money on it. What the hell are they thinking?

1. The Triple cast was ahead of its time., I paid for it and loved it. I saw tons of live wrestling - my main interest - and really liked watching the swimming and track heats uncut. In this day and age with digital cable, satellite services and the breadth of PPV, Triple Cast would go over much better.

b. Plausibly live sucks for sports fans, but he Olympics are about more than sports fans. They are morons about it, but people still watch.

iii. So because Bravo's target audience doesn't fit into your viewpoint of who should broadcast the Olympics, it's a bad idea? It's a means to get allow people to watch what they want. And allows them to make more ad money. Their strategy this time around is nothing short of genius.

People can bitch all they want about NBC and the Olympics, but they make money off them.

[ElJefe]

1. The Triple cast was ahead of its time., I paid for it and loved it. I saw tons of live wrestling - my main interest - and really liked watching the swimming and track heats uncut. In this day and age with digital cable, satellite services and the breadth of PPV, Triple Cast would go over much better.
Seriously. In fact, in an age where you can buy a package with all the NCAA baseball super-regional games for $19, MLS Direct Kick for $69, and the WNBA package for whatever it costs, I'm more than a bit surprised that NBC hasn't tried the PPV concept for their Olympic coverage again.

Think about it. $99 and you get four or five channels of Olympic coverage aside from what NBC and CNBC and MSNBC are showing. In this day and age, people would eat it up.

[geordienation]

I absolutely agree, but wouldn't they have to split revenue with InDemand?

[monster]

I absolutely agree, but wouldn't they have to split revenue with InDemand?
I'm sure they could lease some bandwidth somewhere to have it make sense.

[Lithium858]

MLB will lower their rights fees, but only because nobody will pay them. As for the multiple networks, exclusivity is more valuable. If I'm FOX, why would I pay for something that you can see elsewhere?

...

CBS has a ton of sports coverage: NFL, college football, college basketball including the NCAA tournament, two out of four of golf's Majors and more than half of the PGA events and the US Open tennis tournament. How would you suggest they beef things up?
The NFL doesn't seem to have a problem with their mulitple network coverage. I just think that MLB could be in the same position as NFL when it comes to TV time. What I don't understand is how ABC, FOX and CBS all show the NFL and 'take turns' hosting the Superbowl. Obviously I'm not an expert at sports coverage, cause look at all the corrections I'm getting in my views, but it seems to me that football would cost more to produce than baseball.

As for CBS Sports, I forgot about allf of their college sports coverage partly because I'm not into it. Why don't they have the NBA, NHL or MLB rights though?

[da_cfo]

Seriously. In fact, in an age where you can buy a package with all the NCAA baseball super-regional games for $19, MLS Direct Kick for $69, and the WNBA package for whatever it costs, I'm more than a bit surprised that NBC hasn't tried the PPV concept for their Olympic coverage again.

Think about it. $99 and you get four or five channels of Olympic coverage aside from what NBC and CNBC and MSNBC are showing. In this day and age, people would eat it up.

NBC can actually make MORE money by spreading the Olympics across the constellation of NBC Universal networks than by going to PPV.

By putting content on CNBC, MSNBC, USA Network, Bravo, and Telemundo, NBC can 1) tack on surcharges to cable/satellite TV operators, and 2) increase the carriage of these channels.

Telemundo in particular is getting a boost in 2004 as the exclusive US standard definition TV outlet for men's Olympic soccer.

The way things are going, don't be surprise if NBC adds Olympic content to Sci-Fi Channel, CNBC World, and mun2 come 2008.

(I am more than surprised that NBC isn't using mun2 in 2004. mun2 in particular can use a big boost. )

NBC now has a dozen channels to its disposal and NBC would be foolish not to use the Olympics to jam every one of the channels down the throats of cable/satellite TV operators as a package: either the operator pays a surcharge and agree to carry every NBC Universal channel at the terms dictated by NBC, or the operator doesn't get the Olympics at all.

(Of course the pay TV operator will get a nice kickback for each piece of Olympic merchandise sold by ShopNBC and ShopNBC2 to subscribers.)

Now that's synergy.

[bright]

Isn't the FOX-MLB deal up in 2006? And isn't the ABC/ESPN-SUM deal up in 2006?

I wonder if FOX would be interested in becoming the home of MLS, the US National Team, and World Cup 2010? They could still keep baseball, just add soccer to the main network. FOX MLB GotW 1PM ET, followed by Soccer Saturday on FOX, pre-game 4:30PM ET, kickoff 5PM ET.

- Paul

[wjarrettc]

JP Delacamera who obviously works for ESPN/ABC will be calling soccer for the NBC networks this summer too.



I have a theory that folks like JP are actually independent contractors who ply their services to whoever will pay them and are not actually employees of ABC or ESPN. This is what would allow him to move freely among the networks where the jobs are available.

I have no proof of this, just a hypothesis based on what I see. Does anyone know for sure the status of commentators like Delacamera with ABC Sports / ESPN?

[geordienation]

The NFL doesn't seem to have a problem with their mulitple network coverage. I just think that MLB could be in the same position as NFL when it comes to TV time. What I don't understand is how ABC, FOX and CBS all show the NFL and 'take turns' hosting the Superbowl. Obviously I'm not an expert at sports coverage, cause look at all the corrections I'm getting in my views, but it seems to me that football would cost more to produce than baseball.

As for CBS Sports, I forgot about allf of their college sports coverage partly because I'm not into it. Why don't they have the NBA, NHL or MLB rights though?


The difference between the NFL and MLB: Two things work in Football's favor: 1) It is the most popular sport in the country and 2) It's very regimented schedule and limited number of games makes it a great commodity. Baseball suffers somewhat from oversupply in that respect. There are 162 games for each team and 4 out of 6 games/week are on weeknights.

Baseball's long season is fabulous for weeding out and producing the best teams for the playoffs, but that takes months of day to day action. Some teams can start 0-4 in the NFL and know that they're not making the playoffs. That means every game has value (something you can't say for a mid-week Expos/Rockies game in early May). Hence, Fox's weekend coverage doesn't really hit its full stride until after the All-Star break.

The NFL has two conferences, so that makes for an easy split on the rights: NFC games go to Fox, AFC games go to CBS. ABC/ESPN is the home of primetime games on Sunday and Monday nights, pulling pretty equally from both conferences. This arrangement assures the NFL of getting 4-6 games to every TV in the country each weekend. Because each of the three networks have rights, they rotate the Super Bowl.

Football costs slightly more to produce (more cameras, slightly longer average airtime), but because it's the more popular sport, its advertising rates are substantially higher. That's not to say that the networks make a ton of money on the NFL -- they don't. But both Fox and CBS have been successful in using the NFL as a loss leader to plug their primetime lineups and produce higher ratings.

CBS is very successful with their college sports packages and have said in the past that the only thing they'd be interested in expanding is their Olympic coverage (which NBC has locked up through 2010). Nobody is paying for NHL fees the next time around (as evidenced by NBC's deal) and they've never historically been a baseball network and certainly aren't interested in it at current or close-to-current prices.

As for the NBA, Jordan maintained the league's post-Bird/Magic popularity, but their numbers have been down ever since the Bulls dynasty was dismantled. Even the Lakers haven't consistently pulled in great numbers. Consequently, ABC has said that they overpaid for the NBA the last time around and probably wouldn't do it again.

[geordienation]

Isn't the FOX-MLB deal up in 2006? And isn't the ABC/ESPN-SUM deal up in 2006?

I wonder if FOX would be interested in becoming the home of MLS, the US National Team, and World Cup 2010? They could still keep baseball, just add soccer to the main network. FOX MLB GotW 1PM ET, followed by Soccer Saturday on FOX, pre-game 4:30PM ET, kickoff 5PM ET.

- Paul


Fox is only interested in numbers. The MLS deal is currently a time-buy. Baseball gets better ratings (and actually generates revenue) and I'd bet money that Fox would pick up the MLB rights next time around, albeit at a lower figure.

Until MLS starts turning a bigger number, don't expect much to change. They actually like the cache of being on the #1 sports channel in the country. If they're going to pay for time, it's going to be there (on cable) rather than on a more expensive, over-the-air national network.

[DAGSports]

The NFL has been critical to CBS's rebirth as a network- it has boosted Monday and Tuesday programming considerably. FOX is unimpressed with the rights fee and might reduce themselves to satellite (DirecTV) coverage. ABC and ESPN will probably renew because ABC doesn't have anything close to Monday Night Football in the ratings while ESPN would probably have to re-do their deals with the cable/satellite providers without the NFL. That might leave TNT with the probable Thursday night package.

Oh and those 4-6 national games are only if you don't live in San Francisco or New York (two teams in those markets, each of which gets protection against the other network broadcasting during their game). :(

Anyway, ABC does need the NBA to reach the 18-34, urban demographic. They really don't have anything else that does this.

NBC is hoping that its strong record of increased ratings among the sports products it shows (Triple Crown, Olympics, golf) will boost NHL ratings, plus promotion on Thursday and Friday nights.

MLS is probably happy with free TV time on ESPN 2 and FSW for the foreseeable future. Ratings probably won't jump too much in the next few years.

[Olesh]

The bottom line with MLB baseball is that it is simply an awful property for the major networks. Although the postseason gets good ratings with good match-ups, there is always the risk of having some dud series to really drag down the numbers. The postseason overlaps precisely with the launch of networks' primetime fall schedule. By being forced to show baseball, it mucks up the ability for the network to establish their schedule. Do you think FOX likes waiting until November to debut their shows?

Prime Time divisions rule networks, they're fine with sports complimenting them, but not overtaking them. I honestly don't see another network stepping up and paying much of anything for baseball. I can forsee the MLB deal looking a lot like the NHL deal. A few weekend afternoons here and there, maybe some playoff games in weekend primetime, but not on weekdays. A portion of the World Series games probably won't be on free TV.

I'll stop now before I really go off on a tangent about all the NFL arguements you guys discussed earlier.

[Lithium858]

What was the reason for Fox to start showing games in mid May instead of waiting until after the All-Star break? It was also weird for them to air the first game of Yankees-Red Sox clash in prime time this April. With all of the parity this seas in baseball it looks like rating are higher than usual. Anyway, it's not like the big networks' summer programming is anything spectacular. Typically thet show re-runs of the fall season's shows. Lately they have been showing more 'reality' t.v. in the summer. I dunno why but I think they are just space fillers until the fall season starts back up.

[da_cfo]

I have a theory that folks like JP are actually independent contractors who ply their services to whoever will pay them and are not actually employees of ABC or ESPN. This is what would allow him to move freely among the networks where the jobs are available.

I have no proof of this, just a hypothesis based on what I see. Does anyone know for sure the status of commentators like Delacamera with ABC Sports / ESPN?

I believe JP made the switch from full-time ESPN employee to an independent contractor when he took the NHL Atlanta Thrashers play by play gig.