|
|
Post by hchoops on Sept 26, 2019 16:25:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 26, 2019 23:23:37 GMT -5
How did the PL lose it's spot on ESPN during Conference Championship Week? ESPN must have many more viewers than CBSSN.
|
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Sept 26, 2019 23:43:20 GMT -5
How did the PL lose it's spot on ESPN during Conference Championship Week? ESPN must have many more viewers than CBSSN. They didn't lose it. They could have kept their spot indefinitely, but CBSSN offered the league a much better deal. ESPN was televising one PL game a year. CBSSN televises 19 games a year - and devotes a lot more time to pregame and post-game as well. Also they agreed to televise 12 lacrosse games - which obviously is a big sport to the league - and a couple of baseball games. CBSSN in not in as many households as ESPN of course. But it has significantly closed the gap. It's available on almost every cable system and the number of viewers has gone up a lot. Fwiw, it also has the most affluent viewer base of any sports network. |
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 27, 2019 1:59:21 GMT -5
How did the PL lose it's spot on ESPN during Conference Championship Week? ESPN must have many more viewers than CBSSN. They didn't lose it. They could have kept their spot indefinitely, but CBSSN offered the league a much better deal. ESPN was televising one PL game a year. CBSSN televises 19 games a year - and devotes a lot more time to pregame and post-game as well. Also they agreed to televise 12 lacrosse games - which obviously is a big sport to the league - and a couple of baseball games. CBSSN in not in as many households as ESPN of course. But it has significantly closed the gap. It's available on almost every cable system and the number of viewers has gone up a lot. Fwiw, it also has the most affluent viewer base of any sports network. Most affluent viewer base? Must be why I don't have it.  Actually, that sounds like a good trade-off. Thirty-three games for one. |
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Sept 27, 2019 8:21:04 GMT -5
We have only two televised games out of 19 total - Well, I guess that sounds about right
|
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Sept 27, 2019 8:25:57 GMT -5
19 games would have 38 teams so if they were evenly distributed we’d be in 3 or 4
|
|
evan
Freshman
Posts: 13
|
Post by evan on Sept 27, 2019 8:29:53 GMT -5
Actually, not that bad. Three women's games, three men's playoff games, and two flex games means only eleven games have been set, oneof which is a Navy non-con game, so ten PL games leaves HC right at the average for appearances.
|
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Sept 27, 2019 13:36:38 GMT -5
We have only two televised games out of 19 total - Well, I guess that sounds about right But don't forget that there are two flex games at the end that have yet to be assigned, so there is a chance to get another. One other factor is that CBS loves to cover Army-Navy games, and it is possible that the national viewing base may be higher for those teams. Of the 19 games, four of them (two men and two women) are the Army-Navy games. Bucknell, btw, has only three TV games - one home and two road - despite having won the PL regular season in 8 of the last 9 years and despite having led the league in attendance for 15 straight years. And American is not happy about landing only one of the 19 games, even though they likely will be picked for 2nd or 3rd in the preseason poll. Lehigh also has only one TV game despite having been the league's second most successful team over the past decade. |
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Sept 30, 2019 10:31:03 GMT -5
How did the PL lose it's spot on ESPN during Conference Championship Week? ESPN must have many more viewers than CBSSN. They didn't lose it. They could have kept their spot indefinitely, but CBSSN offered the league a much better deal. ESPN was televising one PL game a year. CBSSN televises 19 games a year - and devotes a lot more time to pregame and post-game as well. Also they agreed to televise 12 lacrosse games - which obviously is a big sport to the league - and a couple of baseball games. CBSSN in not in as many households as ESPN of course. But it has significantly closed the gap. It's available on almost every cable system and the number of viewers has gone up a lot. Fwiw, it also has the most affluent viewer base of any sports network. Extremely questionable that it's a "much better deal" (or even better at all). Monday night games in empty gyms on CBSSN that are more difficult for PL fans to watch and that no casual fans are watching does not really benefit the league at all. A deal with ESPN that included some ESPNU games, the PL Network carried through ESPN+ (as opposed to the AWFUL Stadium) and the PLC on ESPN/ESPN2 as part of Championship Week would be much better than where the League's media package is right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Sept 30, 2019 10:52:59 GMT -5
Having games on ESPN+ would be infinitely better than Stadium.
|
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Sept 30, 2019 11:02:46 GMT -5
The hypothetical deal you propose might well be better. But, as my post said, I was talking about what was a better deal at the time when of the negotiations, i.e. 2011, not what might have been better eight years later. When the CBSSN deal was negotiated back in 2011, there was no offer from ESPN to carry a lot of PL games on any of its networks - and ESPN3/ESPN+ didn't even exist. As I understand it, most PL schools - maybe all - were in favor of the CBSSN deal, and they signed off on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Sept 30, 2019 11:03:29 GMT -5
Having games on ESPN+ would be infinitely better than Stadium. Agree. |
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Sept 30, 2019 13:55:53 GMT -5
The hypothetical deal you propose might well be better. But, as my post said, I was talking about what was a better deal at the time when of the negotiations, i.e. 2011, not what might have been better eight years later. When the CBSSN deal was negotiated back in 2011, there was no offer from ESPN to carry a lot of PL games on any of its networks - and ESPN3/ESPN+ didn't even exist. As I understand it, most PL schools - maybe all - were in favor of the CBSSN deal, and they signed off on it. Fair point, but ESPN was carrying league games in 2008-09 (https://goholycross.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=33100&ATCLID=210193632), and given the incompetence the PL (and its members) have displayed on the media front, I wouldn't be surprised at all if those games going away had something to do with those parties dropping the ball. And even if that was not the case, continuing on with the same contract 8 years later after the amount of change in the media landscape since that time is just plain stupid. The current CBSSN + Stadium approach is bad for the league. |
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 30, 2019 15:40:43 GMT -5
Maybe we could sacrafice 10% of our rights fees (about a buck or so) to get "open" contracts with CBSSN and Stadium that allow any of the ESPN platforms or any other platform to pick up games not being carried on CBSSN or Stadium. The PL could promise to ask all alumni to watch Stadium sports blurbs on those little video screens at the gas pump.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 1, 2019 11:03:53 GMT -5
selfishly speaking. . . this is meaningless. I would be way more interested if road games were televised. At least then I could find a bar with the game (I don't have the channel)
I do understand not everyone lives within reasonable driving distance to Hart
|
|
Actually, that sounds like a good trade-off. Thirty-three games for one.
