From TV Technology:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/69228

Free TV Losing Bowl Games to ESPN

11.18.2008

ESPN is calling it “an exceptional day” for college football fans. But a new deal between the cable network and the college football authorities means millions of viewers will be unable to watch big-time college bowl games on free broadcast TV.

Tuesday, ESPN and the Bowl Champion Series announced that ESPN would have exclusive rights to the Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowls from 2011 to 2014, as well as the BCS National Championship Game from 2011 to 2013.

In a conference call with reporters, ESPN President George Bodenheimer said most serious college football fans already have subscription TV. For last year’s championship game, 95 percent of viewers were connected to cable or satellite, he said.

“[The].relatively small differential between broadcast and cable is only going to continue to dissipate,” he said.

Pressed by reporters how he could explain to over-the-air viewers that removing the games was a good deal for them, he repeated that the number of over-the-air-only viewers is decreasing, and noted that the current trend is for high-profile sports to migrate to cable.

ESPN’s parent corporation, Disney, is also the owner of the ABC broadcast network.

Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Who doesn't have cable\sat\fios? No sports fan could live without it.
Why does ESPN owe anyone an explanation?

The vast majority of CFB games aren't available OTA anyway. I don't see what the big deal is. Like the article says, if you're really that much of a fan, you already have cable. So where is all of the outrage coming from?

Yeah, I have cable. And I have ESPN. But 90% of my HDTV is OTA. Because I don't want a stinkin' "cable box" sitting on top of my TV. Never have, never will. :eek:

Yeah, I have cable. And I have ESPN. But 90% of my HDTV is OTA. Because I don't want a stinkin' "cable box" sitting on top of my TV. Never have, never will. :eek:

You're in the minority.

"It's all about the money, honey !"

You're in the minority.

Yes, but fortunately I'm not that much of a college football fan, so if I can't watch in in HD I probably will be just as happy to not watch it at all.

But unfortunately I have a teenage son . . . . .

But fortunately, he doesn't really seem to care if it's HD or not...........

And he's also happy listening to MP3's ...........

Go figure...

Yeah, I have cable. And I have ESPN. But 90% of my HDTV is OTA. Because I don't want a stinkin' "cable box" sitting on top of my TV. Never have, never will. :eek:

Where does the other 10% come from ?

Unencrypted cable. (Clear QAM)

Yeah, I have cable. And I have ESPN. But 90% of my HDTV is OTA. Because I don't want a stinkin' "cable box" sitting on top of my TV. Never have, never will. :eek:

I agree, I keep mine in a nice cabinet, below the TV.

The Open Championship is also moving to ESPN in 2010, all 4 rounds.

this is great news. now maybe the broadcast networks will have something on worth watching. i certainly wont be watching espn.

Yeah, I have cable. And I have ESPN. But 90% of my HDTV is OTA. Because I don't want a stinkin' "cable box" sitting on top of my TV. Never have, never will. :eek:

sorry, how about a combo dvr and sat box? vast majority of people already get espn. you will too if you really want to watch these games.

the real issue here is that we're stuck with espn's lousy 720p.

Fox's coverage always seemed forced and unnatural. They tried to apply their NFL broadcasting directly to the bowl games which just didn't work. It would make sense to put the games on ABC, but having them on ESPN means the same broadcast anyway.

Perhaps because more than two-thirds of the nation's cable/sat/telco subscribers never watch ESPN, yet they are forced to pay for it?

The networks of ESPN, plus RSN(s), cost each household upwards of $100 annually, tacked on to everyone's bills, so we can happily watch sports.

And do you really think the ESPN nets will charge LESS, now that they have an additional half a billion dollars or so to pay each year for the British Open and the BCS?

Who doesn't have cable\sat\fios? No sports fan could live without it.
Why does ESPN owe anyone an explanation?

Perhaps because more than two-thirds of the nation's cable/sat/telco subscribers never watch ESPN, yet they are forced to pay for it?

The networks of ESPN, plus RSN(s), cost each household upwards of $100 annually, tacked on to everyone's bills, so we can happily watch sports.

And do you really think the ESPN nets will charge LESS, now that they have an additional half a billion dollars or so to pay each year for the British Open and the BCS?

well somebody must be watching espn as it is always included in cheapest hd packages offered by each provider.

The networks of ESPN, plus RSN(s), cost each household upwards of $100 annually
How is that possible? The price I see quoted routinely for ESPN is around $1 per month.

How is that possible? The price I see quoted routinely for ESPN is around $1 per month.

Local RSNs are around $1 per month. The ESPN suite of channels is more. Since all the contracts are package deals for all Disney properties including ABC O&Os, the true cost for just ESPN is an educated guess.

I'm paying $109.00 a month for landline telephone, 20/5 Mbps Internet, and over 100 HD channels from Verizon. But I pay $50 to Microsoft just to play my Xbox online. Whining about a couple dollars out of that $109.00 because ESPN has a strong bargaining position seems pointless to me.

So I'm not sure why people get so selectively outraged over ESPN's subscriber fees, but especially on this forum. Without ESPN pioneering HD coverage of sporting events, one wonders where HDTV would be today. The networks definitely weren't very interested in HD sports, and viewers weren't all that interested in HD comedies and dramas.

Many of these numbers are a year old, but they will give you some idea:

ESPN $2.96
RSNs: $0.20-$2.15
Big Ten Network $0.70-1.10 ($0.10 outside Big Ten territory)
Disney Channel $1 (commercial free)
TNT $ 0.89
Fox News Channel $ 0.75-$1.00
USA $ 0.60
CNN $ 0.44
Discovery $ 0.25
MTV $0.25
TBS $0.25
A&E $ 0.22
History Channel $0.20
National Geographic $ 0.20
ESPN Classic $0.16$-0.17
MSNBC $ 0.15
Fox Business Network $0.11- $0.12 (Rupert Murdoch 9/28/07)
truTV $ 0.11[
HGTV $0.11]
Hallmark Channel $ 0.14-$0.08 (Oppenheimer estimate)
Oxygen $ 0.09
Food Network $0.08

Main Source: Kagan Research

Many of these numbers are a year old, but they will give you some idea
OK, so if you take the absolute worst case scenario from your numbers:
ESPN $2.96
RSNs: $2.15
Big Ten Network $1.10
ESPN Classic $0.17
You still don't get anywhere near $100/year.

Who doesn't have cable\sat\fios? No sports fan could live without it.
Why does ESPN owe anyone an explanation?

I happen to be a sports fan, especially a college football fan, and currently enjoy watching the games on the current channels. However, I can tell you that when it comes to my wallet I can live without ANY particular channel if I believe I'm paying too much for it. If ESPN raises its per-subscriber rates I am prepared to live without it.

Who doesn't have cable\sat\fios? No sports fan could live without it.
Why does ESPN owe anyone an explanation?

I don't have a subscription service and I don't like the idea of having to pay the following to get what I could already get on ABC or FOX for free:

Limited basic
Expanded
Digital service
HD service (I would want to keep watching these games in HD, if possible)

Of course, since I can't just pay for ESPN (I have to pay the full ~$70/mo. for hundreds of channels I don't want), it's all or nothing.

Disney and the BCS seem to think they are "helping" the transition with this move. I don't see how transitioning to analog pay cable is a "successful" transition.

Hockey moved to Versus (back when I had cable, but not Versus), Baseball moved to TBS, which has 0 else to watch.

More and more channels are being created to retain what we already had. ESPN is just trying to make up for what they already lost I suppose, but we could have 10 thousand channels and it wouldn't change how much TV I watch (very little aside from sports).

However, I can tell you that when it comes to my wallet I can live without ANY particular channel if I believe I'm paying too much for it. If ESPN raises its per-subscriber rates I am prepared to live without it.Unfortunately, under the current regime you have no choice but to drop cable or drop back to broadcast basic.

Why does ESPN owe anyone an explanation?

How about this for a reason...

The only way that ESPN outbids the broadcast networks is that it intends to pass on the difference to cable/satellite subscribers in the form of increased monthly fees. In other words, it isn't ESPN that is paying the cost for moving these games from broadcast TV over to ESPN, but the viewers.

I don't see that as being a very good deal for viewers.

The Mouse decimated ABC Sports and made it "ESPN on ABC" which is what is shown for every Saturday night college football game on ABC.

Why wouldn't ESPN/Disney put these games on ABC?

They could still do the GameDay/Capital One Bowl Week/Tostito's BCS rigamarole crap, similar to the over-hyping of MNF.

They would reach more homes. There would not be any OTA belly-aching, and they can still use the ESPN brand while pumping up ABC primetime and advertising for ABC shows.

The only way that ESPN outbids the broadcast networks is that it intends to pass on the difference to cable/satellite subscribers in the form of increased monthly fees.
Really? So FOX was going to get their $100 million magically, since they don't get to collect per-subscriber fees?

[rant]
This whole thing reminds me of a comment I posted on an Iowa news site a couple of years back.

Back then the topic was how much we're paying college coaches and how much colleges are spending on sports. I had the nerve to suggest that all this spending is going to drive up your cable bill. The next poster nearly laughed me off the site. To him, the two are not related.

Clearly, they are.

As long as cable sports nets can mandate basic carriage and can raise their rates with no transparency other than the limited information we can glean from third-party research firms like Kagan, the sky truly is the limit.

Of course, there's also the danger that one of these days, someone is going to overstep their bounds and put these schools in their place. The entire BCS Top 10 for this week is made-up of government-run schools; those in the top 25 which aren't government-run are government-subsidized through "non-profit" status; and lawmakers have raised questions about the BCS itself in the past, as have fans. I won't even get into how the players won't get a cut of any of this half-billion.
[/rant off]

Comments?

I happen to be a sports fan, especially a college football fan, and currently enjoy watching the games on the current channels. However, I can tell you that when it comes to my wallet I can live without ANY particular channel if I believe I'm paying too much for it. If ESPN raises its per-subscriber rates I am prepared to live without it.

yes but are you prepared to ditch cable altogether and go with OTA only. unless espn becomes a premium channel like hbo, you have to pay whether you watch it or not.

I know a few people that don't have cable or satellite. They are either eldery people that are on a fixed income or come from a poorer-than-most background and shelling out $50+ for cable isn't feasible. Still, it's not good that "elite" games of a sport are not on OTA channels.

I don't have cable or satellite. I'm getting on in years, but I'm not quite old enough for senior citizens discounts yet. I'm still employed, and make enough money to pay $50 or so a month for cable if I wanted to. I enjoy watching major sports events on the broadcast networks, and I do end up watching most of them: college football bowl games and the NFL playoffs and some of the big games during the season (especially if they involve teams that I have some "connection" with); the World Series; the Masters, the (British) Open, etc.; the NCAA basketball tournament; Wimbledon; etc.

Nevertheless, these aren't important enough to me to pay $600+ per year for cable (of course it would have to include ESPN HD if I wanted to watch sports). If these events all migrate to cable/satellite-only networks, I'll simply do without, and be even less involved in sports than I am now. I guess I'm simply not serious enough about sports to be worth it to them to be part of their audience at all.

Internet peeps have a term for this: heroin content.

The sports crowd is like heroin addicts. They will do anything to get their fix.

Of course, it will be funny to read about that 5% ratings drop off when 2011 rolls around.

All I'll say is that it fascinates me that the same people in the networks who complain about the decline of television don't see any connection between the general crappiness of cable's selling proposition and the migration of people away from the TV and toward other forms of entertainment.

You know, before I went to college I had dial-up and cable TV -- full digital package. When I left college I had no cable and went all-in for high-speed internet. This is the general direction of the audience: away from cable and toward the internet, games and other electronic outlets.

Increasingly, the remaining TV audience is the hardcore junkies. And this is producing a bit of a death spiral for TV. Because as the outliers leave, the networks are forced to cater to the junkies. There are few, if any, casual college football viewers anymore. So, there isn't much incentive for ESPN to care about the casual viewer.

Something similar already hit MLB. For example, I live around Pittsburgh. You cannot watch a Pirates game without cable. Ever.

I don't know that people would consider the current state of baseball's TV ratings to be a bright shining success. Certainly not when compared to the OTA-friendly NFL's TV ratings.

I don't know what that all adds up to. If I had to guess, I'd say that college and ESPN/ABC are making a short-term good decision that has adverse long-term consequences for the casual audience's continued erosion.

From TV Technology:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/69228

This would be okay if everyone would finally get over this nonsense of 720p and just film and broadcast in 1080i. I was happy that FOX didn't want the BCS...until I heard that it was going to ESPN, another 720p network.

When will FOX and ABC/ESPN learn??

I am not a fan of ESPN however the one thing I think they still do a bang up job with is CFB. I think this is great for the CFB fan it just doesn't feel the same with Fox doing it.

Nevertheless, these aren't important enough to me to pay $600+ per year for cable (of course it would have to include ESPN HD if I wanted to watch sports). If these events all migrate to cable/satellite-only networks, I'll simply do without, and be even less involved in sports than I am now. I guess I'm simply not serious enough about sports to be worth it to them to be part of their audience at all.

I'm in the same boat, and old enough to remember when the college bowl games were a cultural event. The three big ones on New Year's Day could be watched back-to-back-to-back: Sugar, Rose, Orange. When people returned to work in the New Year, "everyone" had seen them and had a shared event to talk about. Often, there was a consensus national champion of college football from that one day's results. Back then, it would have been a big deal if those bowls had gone from broadcast to cable. Today, with bowl games proliferating, audiences fragmenting and the best games moved away from New Year's Day anyway . . . who cares?

I agree New Year's day is not the same anymore I don't like how they strecth out the bowl games but will say irt is nice having extra days of CFB

This would be okay if everyone would finally get over this nonsense of 720p and just film and broadcast in 1080i. I was happy that FOX didn't want the BCS...until I heard that it was going to ESPN, another 720p network.

When will FOX and ABC/ESPN learn??

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, re: 720p vs 1080i. NBC broadcasts in 1080i and in many areas, on many systems, it is crap (including mine).

But to answer your question, never, since switching to 1080i would require an enormous capital investment that those entities simply will not make.

To me, the whole bowl season has become a bit of a joke. I'm all for the best teams being allowed to play in bowl games, but now almost every team with 6 wins is rewarded with some type of bowl game. 6 wins means they won half of their games. To me, it's ridiculous to send teams like that to bowl games. I'm a huge Texas A&M fan. They are two wins away from being bowl eligible this year (pending our defeat at the hands of Texas), which sounds pretty good, but the Aggies suck this year. As an alumni and an employee of the university, I don't want them going to a bowl game, even if they had the 6-win minimum.

On a similar note, if we all hope and pray, maybe the BCS will be dissolved by the time it's ESPN's turn to broadcast the games. In that case, this will all be a "moo point. You know, it's like a cow's opinion; it doesn't matter. It's moo."

Hey, Obama says he's in favor of a playoff scenario.

This would be okay if everyone would finally get over this nonsense of 720p and just film and broadcast in 1080i. I was happy that FOX didn't want the BCS...until I heard that it was going to ESPN, another 720p network.

When will FOX and ABC/ESPN learn??For the 18th kajillionth time, there is nothing wrong with 720p!

My major disappointment is this contract will not get college football any closer to a real playoff.

This would be okay if everyone would finally get over this nonsense of 720p and just film and broadcast in 1080i. I was happy that FOX didn't want the BCS...until I heard that it was going to ESPN, another 720p network.

When will FOX and ABC/ESPN learn??

Yes, pixel count is higher in 1080i and has potential to look better. But, for sports, it is hard to argue that interlaced is better than progressive. It is also hard to argue that lighting doesn't make a world of difference in how good something can look in 720p as well as 1080i. You are making the wrong argument.

My major disappointment is this contract will not get college football any closer to a real playoff.

I use to want a playoff system but I think it would take away from the regular season however I would be interested in maybe a 4 team playoff after the bowls

Steve, how does it take away from the regular season when 8 or so teams play their hearts out and finish with one loss but there's no clear consensus on who goes to the big game? We're almost there this year. They're not going to play any softer just because there's a playoff, because you still have to get in it.

Having said that, playoffs will never happen until the current old fart regime of college presidents is retired.

And I agree with a prior poster - just because ESPN picked up the BCS crap doesn't mean that ABC won't be carrying some of the games, so it's not like they're all going to cable. But it does mean that folks that don't care will be paying more money for the privilege regardless.

Why wouldn't ESPN/Disney put these games on ABC? Because a BCS game on ESPN plus a rerun of, say "Grey's Anatomy" on ABC will net more ad dollars than the same game on ABC plus whatever lame filler ESPN would run in that timeslot. Especially if a particular BCS game ends up being between two teams 90% of the country could care less about.

For the 18th kajillionth time, there is nothing wrong with 720p!

ever watch NFL/MLB on FoxHD 720p?
simply horrible
perception is everything

I use to want a playoff system but I think it would take away from the regular season however I would be interested in maybe a 4 team playoff after the bowls

Does having a playoff system in the NFL take away from the regular season?

If they can have a 32 team playoff in Division III, a 24 team playoff in Division II, and a 16 team playoff in FCS, there should be one for the big schools too.

Does having a playoff system in the NFL take away from the regular season?

If they can have a 32 team playoff in Division III, a 24 team playoff in Division II, and a 16 team playoff in FCS, there should be one for the big schools too.

I think it does because once you have clinched a spot no need to go the extra mile to win the last 1 or2 games. The one game of several that sticks out to me is USC a couple of years ago loosing to UCLA. If they had alreadt guarnteed a spot in the playoffs the game would have meant nothing instead UCLA knocks them out of the national championship picture.

I think it does because once you have clinched a spot no need to go the extra mile to win the last 1 or2 games. The one game of several that sticks out to me is USC a couple of years ago loosing to UCLA. If they had alreadt guarnteed a spot in the playoffs the game would have meant nothing instead UCLA knocks them out of the national championship picture.

hogwash
these are kids not ungrateful pro's
they will be playing to prove something

ever watch NFL/MLB on FoxHD 720p?
simply horrible
perception is everything
The Fiesta Bowl with Oklahoma/Boise State was one of the best looking games I have ever seen. And it was in 720p. Just wanted to throw that in.

I am not a fan of ESPN however the one thing I think they still do a bang up job with is CFB. I think this is great for the CFB fan it just doesn't feel the same with Fox doing it.

I was glad to hear ESPN is getting the BCS games. Fox sucked at it. It was never a college football network. I could never figure out why Fox had the games in the first place.

I've had ESPN since day 1 in Sept 1979. Always will. No big deal to me that it moved away from one of the OTA networks.

yes but are you prepared to ditch cable altogether and go with OTA only. unless espn becomes a premium channel like hbo, you have to pay whether you watch it or not.


I don't have to give up cable completely. My local mom & pop cable operation is required to offer a "basic" cable subscription for a greatly reduced monthly fee. Since neither ESPN or any of its progeny are included in this plan, my college football choices would be limited but my wallet would breath a sigh of relief.

I guess the biggest concern right now would be an important game ending up on ESPNU, which it seems most people still don't have.

LOL, can't see that happening anytime soon. ESPNU stands for ESPN Unwanted right now with the games they put on.

I think it does because once you have clinched a spot no need to go the extra mile to win the last 1 or2 games. The one game of several that sticks out to me is USC a couple of years ago loosing to UCLA. If they had alreadt guarnteed a spot in the playoffs the game would have meant nothing instead UCLA knocks them out of the national championship picture.
So go by the final polls to see who gets in, not by conference championships. That's the way it would be, IMO. USC (or any team) would not have a guaranteed spot in the playoffs until all the games were played, and a crappy loss like that could easily knock them out at the end.

So go by the final polls to see who gets in, not by conference championships. That's the way it would be, IMO. USC (or any team) would not have a guaranteed spot in the playoffs until all the games were played, and a crappy loss like that could easily knock them out at the end.
haha, 2 words, Notre Dame

hogwash
these are kids not ungrateful pro's
they will be playing to prove something

You don't think the coaches would pull the star players out? Like I said I think a 4 ame playoff would be great after all the bowls are played or you use 3 of the bowls for the playoffs.

ever watch NFL/MLB on FoxHD 720p?
simply horrible
perception is everything
That has nothing to do with 720p and everything to do with FOX production.

My major disappointment is this contract will not get college football any closer to a real playoff.

Agreed. The current system is broken and I wish all the networks had rejected it until it was fixed. If every other NCAA sport can managed to get a playoff system work so can the FCB.

The Open Championship is also moving to ESPN in 2010, all 4 rounds.
Ahhhhh! Now I'll have to hook up my garage TV to DISH.

That has nothing to do with 720p and everything to do with FOX production.

that's why i said perception is everything

Really? So FOX was going to get their $100 million magically, since they don't get to collect per-subscriber fees?

Fox was outbid by ESPN, so I really don't see what your point is here? The bottom line is that a cable network that can just jack up the affiliate fees that it charges is going to tend to have a bidding advantage over a broadcast network that is entirely dependent on advertising revenue.

We've seen this play out over and over in recent years, primarily in sports programming, where ESPN's outrageous affiliate fees give them the ability to bid high.

I'm glad it's back on ESPN myself. I thought Fox's Bowl game coverage was awful.