10 Questions for the BE in 2014

[stever20]

I don't know how Fox's NFL schedule works but could Fox put "out of market" NFL games on FS1?

I bet if they did that the general public would figure out pretty quickly where FS1 is on their channel line up and if they don't get FS1, they would figure out how to pretty quickly.

Here in Raleigh, North Carolina we have two options: AT&T Uverse and Time-Warner Cable (although Google Fiber is slated for my area fairly soon). On Uverse you need U200 to get any of the ESPN channels and all of the Fox Sports (FS1, FS2, FS South) are also included in U200. On TWC "Standard" includes ESPN/ESPN2/FS1 and "Preferred" includes "Standard" plus ESPNNews/ESPNU/FS2. As near as I can tell, access to FS1 is basically the same as ESPN/ESPN2 and FS2 is same or better as access to ESPNU/ESPNNews.

I know things are different in other parts of the country but Uverse is a national provider (although their current pissing contest with Fox means NO ACCESS TO FS1 for BigEast tournament) - not sure what the comparison of DirectTV or Dish is. The Google Fiber channel lineup is basically the same as Uverse 200.

It has been a while since I had TWC but when I did have it, you could get ESPN and ESPN2 without a cable box but only in Standard Definition. If you wanted HD, you needed to have a cable box. That may still be the case, I don't know but I cannot imagine being happy watching basketball in SD. Bleh. As much as I'd like to get rid of the cable box, I don't see that as an option. The slowness of the TWC cable box was one of the primary reasons I switched from TWC to AT&T.

No they can't. For out of market games, it's DirecTV Sunday Ticket or nothing.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Stever, I really respect you as a poster. I genuinely enjoy reading your arguments/points of view - it creates debate and causes a few of us to take a step back and go back and forth with regards to topics. I didn't know anything about your past, or what team you root for. Thanks for sharing.

I know you feel that ESPN is the end-all-be-all with regards to sports programming - and it is without question the top dog right now. However, there is/has been a growing sentiment around the country about frustrations with ESPN programming - ranging from clear biases, unethical/improper reporting, love fascinations with certain athletes, etc. There was a quote from Heath Bell earlier this year that a majority of MLB players (not on east coast) have stopped watching ESPN Baseball Tonight (instead watching MLB Network) because a majority of the time is given to the Yankees and Red Sox. College Basketball programming is pretty much exclusively tilted toward the ACC (Duke/UNC ADs ran non-stop during all Big 12 games during the week). ESPN owning the Longhorn Network also creates a clear conflict in interest, as they have incentive to promote Texas more so that other Big 12 schools (even when they have down years like last year). I'm not even going to list all the insensitive and improper remarks made by commentators over the years involving race/domestic abuse/etc.

Fox Sports provides a great alternative to ESPN. If done right, it will serve as a great compliment (not competitor) to ESPN. You don't simply create a new channel and immediately get viewers. The process takes time.

[stever20]

Stever, I really respect you as a poster. I genuinely enjoy reading your arguments/points of view - it creates debate and causes a few of us to take a step back and go back and forth with regards to topics. I didn't know anything about your past, or what team you root for. Thanks for sharing.

I know you feel that ESPN is the end-all-be-all with regards to sports programming - and it is without question the top dog right now. However, there is/has been a growing sentiment around the country about frustrations with ESPN programming - ranging from clear biases, unethical/improper reporting, love fascinations with certain athletes, etc. There was a quote from Heath Bell earlier this year that a majority of MLB players (not on east coast) have stopped watching ESPN Baseball Tonight (instead watching MLB Network) because a majority of the time is given to the Yankees and Red Sox. College Basketball programming is pretty much exclusively tilted toward the ACC (Duke/UNC ADs ran non-stop during all Big 12 games during the week). ESPN owning the Longhorn Network also creates a clear conflict in interest, as they have incentive to promote Texas more so that other Big 12 schools (even when they have down years like last year). I'm not even going to list all the insensitive and improper remarks made by commentators over the years involving race/domestic abuse/etc.

Fox Sports provides a great alternative to ESPN. If done right, it will serve as a great compliment (not competitor) to ESPN. You don't simply create a new channel and immediately get viewers. The process takes time.

My point with Fox is that they jumped into the sports game at absolutely the worst possible time. I never remember ever a period with as few sports properties available for bidding. I just don't think Fox can be that alternative to ESPN if they don't have the live sports programming which ESPN has cornered the market on(and NBC with the NHL actually). Nothing is out there that can help drive the viewers to FS1. Even the Big Ten- you know that they would get a number of Big Fox slots. Just don't see the Big Ten being this magic elixir that everyone here thinks it's going to be. Also I think the UFC/Nascar component is a turnoff for a lot of folks. I don't mind it but I know I've turned on FS1 at what I thought would be a Fox Sports Live to see UFC instead. For some, that's an automatic turn off. Also I think Fox really has missed the boat with Jay and Dan on Fox Sports Live- said it the very first night they were on the air. There are a few things I like with Fox- #1 is Tim Brando- man heard him calling a Georgetown game last few weeks and just loved it.

[Xudash]

About me...

I never went to Georgetown but I did have Georgetown season tickets. Back when Mourning and Mutombo were around blocking everything. I remember doing a paper in High School about Prop 48 and got so much info from a friend who worked in the SID office of Georgetown. Always been a T-Shirt fan of Georgetown- liked them so much more than Maryland- guess never really cared for Lefty that much and then the period in the late 80's Maryland was so bad after the Bias death. I still remember all the games at the old Cap Centre.

I guess I'm more of a general college basketball fan 1st/Georgetown 2nd. I have been too harsh on here about the Big East- think it's got a ton of potential but still a ways to go. I still remember back in the 80's/90's where a good year would be yeah 5 of 9 in the tourney- but the seeds be 1,2,3,6,6 like in 1987(with PC being one of those 6's). That's what I think of when I think of dominant Big East Basketball. I'm sorry, but Big East of 2015 just not to that level. Maybe I have unrealistic expectations for that- but that's what I think of. When I hear folks saying the Big East is back, I'm just like being back isn't having 1 top 4 seed in the tourney. It's having 3 or 4 of those that I want to see before I say it's back.

I don't think Fox long term is all that viable of an option- just think it's going to take WAY too long to get FS1 to the point where it's a viable option- large part of that is the fact there is no Pro sports out there to get. I think Fox really was blind-sided to some degree that they didn't even get a shot to bid on the NBA. I think large part of everything is timing-as it is in life- and Fox had lousy timing when they started their network- right after NHL and NFL had signed their deals, along with all the major conferences with the exception of Big Ten. While fox has a great track record for other things, I just think sports is a completely different nut to crack. I think it's fair to say that it was a gamble to go with Fox. If FS1 develops the way you all think it will- the gamble pays off. If FS1 though can't crack thru- and becomes even weaker than they are now- which could happen- yeah getting money for the next 10 years- but at what costs?

Firstly, thanks for providing some key insights on you. Obviously, in this hidden world of electronic discourse, it's not always clear as to who is being sincere with what they write and who is just trying to stir things up.

Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion about Fox. You believe Fox was blindsided on the NBA deal? Do you honestly believe they went into all this without contingency planning? Look at our deal with them: it's a 12 year deal. This is not an overnight play for them, and for us. Fox has the financial wherewithal to make this thing work over time, and they see this as a long-term play.

As one of our St. John's colleagues so eloquently put it, in so many words, the Big East property is not the flagship property for Fox; we are important winter inventory that was fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time when they launched. Yet, as also has been written here, we are treated like a strategic content asset by them; we would never receive such treatment were we an ESPN backseat afterthought.

At what costs vis-a-vis the money? You must not hold a bachelors degree in finance or know many CFO's. No one in their right mind would question the value of this deal to our 10 schools. Overall, had your mindset been in control, North America would still be inhabited only by native American indians. Calculated risk is a good thing, not to mention having the patience to see a decision through, especially one having an outcome that runs past a decade.

[stever20]

About me...

I never went to Georgetown but I did have Georgetown season tickets. Back when Mourning and Mutombo were around blocking everything. I remember doing a paper in High School about Prop 48 and got so much info from a friend who worked in the SID office of Georgetown. Always been a T-Shirt fan of Georgetown- liked them so much more than Maryland- guess never really cared for Lefty that much and then the period in the late 80's Maryland was so bad after the Bias death. I still remember all the games at the old Cap Centre.

I guess I'm more of a general college basketball fan 1st/Georgetown 2nd. I have been too harsh on here about the Big East- think it's got a ton of potential but still a ways to go. I still remember back in the 80's/90's where a good year would be yeah 5 of 9 in the tourney- but the seeds be 1,2,3,6,6 like in 1987(with PC being one of those 6's). That's what I think of when I think of dominant Big East Basketball. I'm sorry, but Big East of 2015 just not to that level. Maybe I have unrealistic expectations for that- but that's what I think of. When I hear folks saying the Big East is back, I'm just like being back isn't having 1 top 4 seed in the tourney. It's having 3 or 4 of those that I want to see before I say it's back.

I don't think Fox long term is all that viable of an option- just think it's going to take WAY too long to get FS1 to the point where it's a viable option- large part of that is the fact there is no Pro sports out there to get. I think Fox really was blind-sided to some degree that they didn't even get a shot to bid on the NBA. I think large part of everything is timing-as it is in life- and Fox had lousy timing when they started their network- right after NHL and NFL had signed their deals, along with all the major conferences with the exception of Big Ten. While fox has a great track record for other things, I just think sports is a completely different nut to crack. I think it's fair to say that it was a gamble to go with Fox. If FS1 develops the way you all think it will- the gamble pays off. If FS1 though can't crack thru- and becomes even weaker than they are now- which could happen- yeah getting money for the next 10 years- but at what costs?

Firstly, thanks for providing some key insights on you. Obviously, in this hidden world of electronic discourse, it's not always clear as to who is being sincere with what they write and who is just trying to stir things up.

Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion about Fox. You believe Fox was blindsided on the NBA deal? Do you honestly believe they went into all this without contingency planning? Look at our deal with them: it's a 12 year deal. This is not an overnight play for them, and for us. Fox has the financial wherewithal to make this thing work over time, and they see this as a long-term play.

As one of our St. John's colleagues so eloquently put it, in so many words, the Big East property is not the flagship property for Fox; we are important winter inventory that was fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time when they launched. Yet, as also has been written here, we are treated like a strategic content asset by them; we would never receive such treatment were we an ESPN backseat afterthought.

At what costs vis-a-vis the money? You must not hold a bachelors degree in finance or know many CFO's. No one in their right mind would question the value of this deal to our 10 schools. Overall, had your mindset been in control, North America would still be inhabited only by native American indians. Calculated risk is a good thing, not to mention having the patience to see a decision through, especially one having an outcome that runs past a decade.

I do think Fox was blindsided on the NBA deal. I'm not saying they were without contingency planning- but I absolutely think Fox thought they would have a real shot at getting some of the NBA.

I think a real problem as well with Fox is that the Pro contracts that come up after 2021 or 22- what is to say that NBC for the NHL and ESPN for the NFL won't do exactly what ESPN and Turner did with the NBA- get the deal done prior to renegotiation? Same goes for the NCAA tourney with Turner in 2025 I believe it is.

The bottom line with FS1 right now- right now there are folks that could go weeks without ever turning on FS1.

[Xudash]

About me...

I never went to Georgetown but I did have Georgetown season tickets. Back when Mourning and Mutombo were around blocking everything. I remember doing a paper in High School about Prop 48 and got so much info from a friend who worked in the SID office of Georgetown. Always been a T-Shirt fan of Georgetown- liked them so much more than Maryland- guess never really cared for Lefty that much and then the period in the late 80's Maryland was so bad after the Bias death. I still remember all the games at the old Cap Centre.

I guess I'm more of a general college basketball fan 1st/Georgetown 2nd. I have been too harsh on here about the Big East- think it's got a ton of potential but still a ways to go. I still remember back in the 80's/90's where a good year would be yeah 5 of 9 in the tourney- but the seeds be 1,2,3,6,6 like in 1987(with PC being one of those 6's). That's what I think of when I think of dominant Big East Basketball. I'm sorry, but Big East of 2015 just not to that level. Maybe I have unrealistic expectations for that- but that's what I think of. When I hear folks saying the Big East is back, I'm just like being back isn't having 1 top 4 seed in the tourney. It's having 3 or 4 of those that I want to see before I say it's back.

I don't think Fox long term is all that viable of an option- just think it's going to take WAY too long to get FS1 to the point where it's a viable option- large part of that is the fact there is no Pro sports out there to get. I think Fox really was blind-sided to some degree that they didn't even get a shot to bid on the NBA. I think large part of everything is timing-as it is in life- and Fox had lousy timing when they started their network- right after NHL and NFL had signed their deals, along with all the major conferences with the exception of Big Ten. While fox has a great track record for other things, I just think sports is a completely different nut to crack. I think it's fair to say that it was a gamble to go with Fox. If FS1 develops the way you all think it will- the gamble pays off. If FS1 though can't crack thru- and becomes even weaker than they are now- which could happen- yeah getting money for the next 10 years- but at what costs?

Firstly, thanks for providing some key insights on you. Obviously, in this hidden world of electronic discourse, it's not always clear as to who is being sincere with what they write and who is just trying to stir things up.

Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion about Fox. You believe Fox was blindsided on the NBA deal? Do you honestly believe they went into all this without contingency planning? Look at our deal with them: it's a 12 year deal. This is not an overnight play for them, and for us. Fox has the financial wherewithal to make this thing work over time, and they see this as a long-term play.

As one of our St. John's colleagues so eloquently put it, in so many words, the Big East property is not the flagship property for Fox; we are important winter inventory that was fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time when they launched. Yet, as also has been written here, we are treated like a strategic content asset by them; we would never receive such treatment were we an ESPN backseat afterthought.

At what costs vis-a-vis the money? You must not hold a bachelors degree in finance or know many CFO's. No one in their right mind would question the value of this deal to our 10 schools. Overall, had your mindset been in control, North America would still be inhabited only by native American indians. Calculated risk is a good thing, not to mention having the patience to see a decision through, especially one having an outcome that runs past a decade.

I do think Fox was blindsided on the NBA deal. I'm not saying they were without contingency planning- but I absolutely think Fox thought they would have a real shot at getting some of the NBA.

I think a real problem as well with Fox is that the Pro contracts that come up after 2021 or 22- what is to say that NBC for the NHL and ESPN for the NFL won't do exactly what ESPN and Turner did with the NBA- get the deal done prior to renegotiation? Same goes for the NCAA tourney with Turner in 2025 I believe it is.

The bottom line with FS1 right now- right now there are folks that could go weeks without ever turning on FS1.

You have a very simple solution when it comes to your outlook: continue to worry like hell and expect the worst. Just keep in mind that your outlook isn't shared universally around here. Also keep in mind that you don't need to reiterate it that much from here, because everyone here knows where you stand.

Your terminology is telling. Blindsided? At the risk of cutting hairs with all this, I find it hard to believe that a party could think that they had a real shot at something, knowing that they had no guaranties of anything, and come away feeling blindsided when all or a portion of a deal didn't happen for them.

Beyond all that, do you truly understand the entity? Do you understand that CONTENT IS KING in the entertainment business - I'm lumping sport into that for obvious reasons? Do you understand that Fox understands that, as well as understands the availability and timing of prospective inventory over a long-term horizon?

This is a long-term, global game. What is the (opportunity) cost of being associated with Fox and taking its money? There isn't any. It was a strategic coup for the Big East to land the Fox agreement in the first place. Please feel free to jump off the boat, but please understand that you'll be jumping off the equivalent of a state-of-the-art nuclear powered aircraft carrier: http://www.valueline.com/Stocks/Highlights/SWOT_Analysis__21st_Century_Fox.aspx#.VP35DYHF_Ng

[stever20]

I do understand content is king. That's my biggest position...

what does Fox have in sports content?
Pac 12/Big 12 football(probably the #4 and #5 conferences in college football)
Pac 12/Big East Basketball
MLB(probably the #3 sport)
MLS/World Cup/UEFA(growing sport in US)
USGA events
NASCAR

Really the ONLY thing they could add to it is the Big Ten over the next 5-6 years.

After that properties come up for bidding, but you get into do the prior rights holders re-up before Fox ever gets a chance to bid. I don't think Fox 10 years from now can survive with just what they have now. And the problem is that ESPN knows this and can take some short term losses to keep Fox out of the game which long term benefits them big time. Guess it's called a Monopoly.

And yes, I do think Fox execs were truly expecting to have at least a chance to bid on the NBA and probably in their plan when they were founding the network that was a major part of their plan. And it would be very surprising for them to see it not even get to where they could put a bid in.

I really do hope Fox can make it because ESPN has become too much of a monopoly. The issue is Fox picked absolutely the worst time to get into sports. Remember months ago someone suggested Fox/Turner merge. That would be great and would be a huge competitor for ESPN. Short of that, I don't see how things change too much next 5 years.

[novahoops11]

No conference games are on ESPN3. None.

This is incorrect. From a cursory run-through of team schedule pages:

USF-ECU 1/3/15 ESPN3
Tulane-USF 1/11/15 ESPN3
Tulane-UCF 1/14/15 ESPN3
UCF-ECU 2/7/15 ESPN3
UCF-Houston 2/15/15 ESPN3
USF-Houston 3/1/15 ESPN3

[Xudash]

I do understand content is king. That's my biggest position...

what does Fox have in sports content?
Pac 12/Big 12 football(probably the #4 and #5 conferences in college football)
Pac 12/Big East Basketball
MLB(probably the #3 sport)
MLS/World Cup/UEFA(growing sport in US)
USGA events
NASCAR

Really the ONLY thing they could add to it is the Big Ten over the next 5-6 years.

After that properties come up for bidding, but you get into do the prior rights holders re-up before Fox ever gets a chance to bid. I don't think Fox 10 years from now can survive with just what they have now. And the problem is that ESPN knows this and can take some short term losses to keep Fox out of the game which long term benefits them big time. Guess it's called a Monopoly.

And yes, I do think Fox execs were truly expecting to have at least a chance to bid on the NBA and probably in their plan when they were founding the network that was a major part of their plan. And it would be very surprising for them to see it not even get to where they could put a bid in.

I really do hope Fox can make it because ESPN has become too much of a monopoly. The issue is Fox picked absolutely the worst time to get into sports. Remember months ago someone suggested Fox/Turner merge. That would be great and would be a huge competitor for ESPN. Short of that, I don't see how things change too much next 5 years.

Are you serious with the bolded statement? They launched it assuming the NBA piece built into the plan? Why not just call it a day and go to Vegas if decisions are going to be made like that. And sixty months is not a make or break time frame in this thing.

Fox got into sports and they got into sports when they did based on a substantial amount of research and planning on their part. With all due respect, I'll go with their decisioning over your opinion.

[stever20]

I do understand content is king. That's my biggest position...

what does Fox have in sports content?
Pac 12/Big 12 football(probably the #4 and #5 conferences in college football)
Pac 12/Big East Basketball
MLB(probably the #3 sport)
MLS/World Cup/UEFA(growing sport in US)
USGA events
NASCAR

Really the ONLY thing they could add to it is the Big Ten over the next 5-6 years.

After that properties come up for bidding, but you get into do the prior rights holders re-up before Fox ever gets a chance to bid. I don't think Fox 10 years from now can survive with just what they have now. And the problem is that ESPN knows this and can take some short term losses to keep Fox out of the game which long term benefits them big time. Guess it's called a Monopoly.

And yes, I do think Fox execs were truly expecting to have at least a chance to bid on the NBA and probably in their plan when they were founding the network that was a major part of their plan. And it would be very surprising for them to see it not even get to where they could put a bid in.

I really do hope Fox can make it because ESPN has become too much of a monopoly. The issue is Fox picked absolutely the worst time to get into sports. Remember months ago someone suggested Fox/Turner merge. That would be great and would be a huge competitor for ESPN. Short of that, I don't see how things change too much next 5 years.

Are you serious with the bolded statement? They launched it assuming the NBA piece built into the plan? Why not just call it a day and go to Vegas if decisions are going to be made like that. And sixty months is not a make or break time frame in this thing.

Fox got into sports and they got into sports when they did based on a substantial amount of research and planning on their part. With all due respect, I'll go with their decisioning over your opinion.

If you look at the lay of the land a few years ago, the NBA was going to be absolutely the biggest piece out there that was going to be coming up for bidding in the next 5 years. To say they started the network thinking they would have no shot at the NBA seems like a big reach. Probably since the network started that was by far the biggest surprise to Fox folks.

Also, I think the way ESPN worked with the NBA showed just how much ESPN thought the NBA would help FS1 that they way overpaid to keep it from going out for bidding. So if ESPN knew it, I'm pretty sure Fox did as well.