Fox Sports 1 Update

[stever20]

the thing is if FS1 gets more content, those dog OOC games are going to be the absolute 1st thing to go. I mean, one of our games got 8,000 viewers. Even now as is, wouldn't be shocked to see a lot of the really bad ones gone this upcoming year down to FS2 or FSN.

[stever20]

I have no problem saying it's a brand new channel. But to say this year is a B+ for FS1 just because ratings went up 200% from dog OOC games in November to March with all the conference tournament games- that's a bit idiotic. Man, I wish I had that grading scale when I was in school. It's really a meaningless comparision and not one to base a grade on this season on at all.

If anything, I'd give this year on FS1 probably like a C. Average. Next year will be a lot more telling, as we'll have year vs year comparisions. I think it will be interesting to see if FS1 with how pathetic some of those OOC games ratings were puts them on FS2 or FSN. They could air anything else and it'd get the same ratings, and wouldn't bring down the overall basketball ratings. Also, will be interesting to see the # of games that CBS and CBSSN have.

Guess you missed the part about it being a B+ on a curved scale.

"Overall, a B+ on a curved scale."

it'd be a mighty steep curve for it to get to a B+

[billyjack]

Personally, I would rather have all my non-conference games, regardless of how bad the competition, with national TV exposure as opposed to being buried on a regional network, ESPN3 streaming or no broadcast at all. The ratings last year are what they are. It was a first year network with little content broadcasting non high profile games, but for Big East fans they can watch every game from every team and anyone else that happens to stumble across the channel can tune in if they'd like.

I agree. The exposure is fantastic. Also, I've used ESPN-3 once and I thought it sucked. It was a PC at South Florida game from a few years ago. I can't imagine too many people really enjoy watching a computer screen for 2 hours with low-grade announcers. I think it's kinda bogus when conferences crow about being on ESPN-3. Absolutely I would rather watch FS2 than ESPN-3.

[TBC Alum]

Can anyone find viewer numbers on BTN (esp compared to FS1 numbers)? I've seen several comments about the Big 10 contract being up next year but am wondering what the numbers would like for them versus doing more in house on BTN.

The games currently on BTN will remain. The games that would be up would be all the stuff that's on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU.

Not what I asked. I asked if anyone had rating or viewer numbers for BTN

[Jet915]

Can anyone find viewer numbers on BTN (esp compared to FS1 numbers)? I've seen several comments about the Big 10 contract being up next year but am wondering what the numbers would like for them versus doing more in house on BTN.

The games currently on BTN will remain. The games that would be up would be all the stuff that's on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU.

Not what I asked. I asked if anyone had rating or viewer numbers for BTN

I dont think anyone tracks BTN numbers like CBS Sports Network, probably not in enough households so doesn't qualify.

[LeMoyne00]

I agree. The exposure is fantastic. Also, I've used ESPN-3 once and I thought it sucked. It was a PC at South Florida game from a few years ago. I can't imagine too many people really enjoy watching a computer screen for 2 hours with low-grade announcers. I think it's kinda bogus when conferences crow about being on ESPN-3. Absolutely I would rather watch FS2 than ESPN-3.

I understand the wanting to have everything on National TV - that's great, but I don't consider FS2 to be National TV - very few people have it and if Fox starts getting more content to get viewers and raise awareness, then more and more of our schedule will be pushed to Fox Sports 2 or off completely. No one likes being online only, but the quality of ESPN-3 broadcasts are now HD digital and in some markets sold to Over-The-Air stations as local broadcasts. Plus, everyone who has ESPN (basically anyone with cable) has access to ESPN-3 for free. It's not the same "sucked" as a few years ago - there are Watch ESPN apps for ESPN-3 that you can download to your smart devices (smart TV's, tablets, and phones) in addition to the website. Things have changed a lot - its no different than Netflix broadcasts now.

We talk about FS1 wanting to raise its profile and get more programming to raise ratings, but doing so will be at the cost of airing some of our games I think - and if that's the case something like ESPN has with ESPN-3 where all games are covered anyway is a great thing - another option.

[ChelseaFriar]

I agree. The exposure is fantastic. Also, I've used ESPN-3 once and I thought it sucked. It was a PC at South Florida game from a few years ago. I can't imagine too many people really enjoy watching a computer screen for 2 hours with low-grade announcers. I think it's kinda bogus when conferences crow about being on ESPN-3. Absolutely I would rather watch FS2 than ESPN-3.

I understand the wanting to have everything on National TV - that's great, but I don't consider FS2 to be National TV - very few people have it and if Fox starts getting more content to get viewers and raise awareness, then more and more of our schedule will be pushed to Fox Sports 2 or off completely. No one likes being online only, but the quality of ESPN-3 broadcasts are now HD digital and in some markets sold to Over-The-Air stations as local broadcasts. Plus, everyone who has ESPN (basically anyone with cable) has access to ESPN-3 for free. It's not the same "sucked" as a few years ago - there are Watch ESPN apps for ESPN-3 that you can download to your smart devices (smart TV's, tablets, and phones) in addition to the website. Things have changed a lot - its no different than Netflix broadcasts now.

We talk about FS1 wanting to raise its profile and get more programming to raise ratings, but doing so will be at the cost of airing some of our games I think - and if that's the case something like ESPN has with ESPN-3 where all games are covered anyway is a great thing - another option.

Hopefully more cable providers will pick up Fox Sports 2 in the future. Currently, with Time Warner in NYC, I would have to pay a monthly fee for a Sports Package to get it. I chose not to do it because only 1 or 2 PC games were on FS2 (just went to a sports bar instead). I agree that if Fox Sports is successful, they will get more content and we will have less BE games on Fox Sports 1.

Personally, I prefer a game on TV over my laptop, phone etc. regardless of quality.

[ArmyVet]

You only have to look at the major sporting events that FS1 has secured in future years to know that the channel will succeed. It could take 10 years before they are on everyone's basic cable like ESPN, but it will happen eventually.

[stever20]

You only have to look at the major sporting events that FS1 has secured in future years to know that the channel will succeed. It could take 10 years before they are on everyone's basic cable like ESPN, but it will happen eventually.

What events exactly has FS1 gotten? World Cup, US Open Golf, Some Nascar, and Big East all, Big 12 football, and Pac 12 football/bball. World Cup and US Open golf sound huge- but they're a month every 4 years and a week a year respectively.

FS1's thing now is really to survive until 2021 or 2022. Then when all the sports properties are up- bid big then. Really fox was about 2 years too late to the party.

[Jet915]

Part II of the FS1/Big East impact. Good stuff.

http://painttouches.com/2014/04/11/fs1s-impact-on-big-east-tv-ratings/