New TV Deal

[sprig]

Look how well things worked out for Wisconsin, they even lost most of their home games on TV, http://www.buckys5th...iously-expected.

Not sure what kind of deal Michigan got with Fox Detroit, when they are not on BTN, but if it's like Wisco's, only the Gophers have the remaining good TV deal with FSN. Seems like web streaming is the wave of the future for college hockey.

[yababy8]

Faison didn't negotiate the TV deal. The commissioner at the time, Jim Scherr, negotiated the deal. It has been stated that Faison voted against it. What else would you have him do? Pull UND out of the league? UND has 1 vote out of 8, they don't have veto power. But keep on hating, it seems to keep you going.

As far as the exclusivity clause, that kind of thing happens all the time. This isn't the NFL. Networks like to have exclusivity. I'm sure I could find other examples if I cared enough to go look (how many national networks have the right to broadcast the NHL?). The NFL has a huge demand, they can make a lot more money by making all games available to networks by using multiple networks. You can't compare a college hockey conference to the NFL. Part of the draw for CBS, and probably part of the fee they are paying the conference, is based on them being the exclusive provider of national broadcasts for the NCHC.

There is not hate, just a determined mix of frustration and pragmatics...

Let's put the debate of Faison's role and responsibility on the table for a min and focus on the exclusivity shall we?

The size of the NCHC vs the NHL has zero relevance to the point of exposure. The NFL would not be the NFL if one game a week was on nation tv. Think of it as social physics, the more exposure a sport has the more popularity it will garner.

So there is never a scenario where any interested party benefits from restricting exposure and this includes a broadcaster when the broadcaster is not broadcasting, especially when your talking about on a different day. Isn't that self evident?

Do you disagree with this?

[82SiouxGuy]

Not sure what kind of deal Michigan got with Fox Detroit, when they are not on BTN, but if it's like Wisco's, only the Gophers have the remaining good TV deal with FSN. Seems like web streaming is the wave of the future for college hockey.

http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-hockey/spec-rel/091613aac.html

The University of Michigan ice hockey team, in coordination with the Big Ten, announced today (Monday, Sept. 16) its 28-game television schedule for the 2013-14 regular season. The Wolverines will appear on Fox Sports Detroit or Fox Sports Detroit Plus 11 times, the Big Ten Network eight times each, Comcast five times, the ESPN family of networks twice, and CBS College Sports and Fox Sports North each one time.

Sixteen of the 28 televised games will take place at Yost Ice Arena and nine of the Wolverines' road games will be broadcast. The Jan. 25, 2014, contest vs. Michigan State at Joe Louis Arena will also air. Additionally, both Michigan games in the 2013 Great Lakes Invitational tournament at Comerica Park in Detroit will be televised.

[yababy8]

http://www.mgoblue.c.../091613aac.html

Somebody needs to call them up and explain to them that they have no business with all those broadcasting mediums cause they aint no NFL.

[82SiouxGuy]

There is not hate, just a determined mix of frustration and pragmatics...

Let's put the debate of Faison's role and responsibility on the table for a min and focus on the exclusivity shall we?

The size of the NCHC vs the NHL has zero relevance to the point of exposure. The NFL would not be the NFL if one game a week was on nation tv. Think of it as social physics, the more exposure a sport has the more popularity it will garner.

So there is never a scenario where any interested party benefits from restricting exposure and this includes a broadcaster when the broadcaster is not broadcasting, especially when your talking about on a different day. Isn't that self evident?

Do you disagree with this?

I'm saying that other people disagree. Networks pay extra to be the exclusive home of something. CBS has paid extra for years to be the exclusive home of March Madness even though they could only show 1 game at a time. It is only in recent years that they have been forced to use partner networks to show more games because of demand from the public to watch more, or have more choices. If CBS could get away with it they would go back to being the only outlet for the games.

The NFL started on 1 network. They have added more networks based on demand by the public to see more games. The NFL has used more networks because it makes them more money. The NFL didn't negotiate to go on multiple networks to increase demand, the demand for NFL football allowed them to overcome the networks desire for exclusivity. The networks still have some exclusivity in the TV contracts. CBS gets the home games for the AFC, Fox for the NFC, NBC has Sunday night, ESPN has Monday night and the NFL Network has Thursday. The other networks can't cross those lines.

In other cases, a single network is willing to pay a premium to be the exclusive home of that product. Exclusivity is often an important part of their advertising. I mentioned the NHL because I believe they only have 1 national network. I'm sure there are others. In non-sports, examples would be awards shows like the Oscars or the Grammys. Networks have exclusive rights to those shows. They don't even want other networks broadcasting from outside their location during the show itself. So, I'm pretty sure that the networks disagree with your theory of exposure. They give up exclusivity when forced to during the negotiations, when the demand is high enough that others will pay a similar fee without forcing the exclusivity. But they prefer to be exclusive when possible.

Leagues on the other hand are interested in more exposure. But they are willing to allow the exclusivity for a fee. It's a balancing act.

[82SiouxGuy]

Somebody needs to call them up and explain to them that they have no business with all those broadcasting mediums cause they aint no NFL.

FS Detroit and FS North are regional networks, just like Midco (you do understand the difference between regional and national networks, don't you?). And obviously the Big 10 contract with Big 10 TV has a little more leeway. Who could have imagined that a TV contract with a network owned by the league might give league members a little more freedom? I'm shocked. And who could have imagined that they might have a little more negotiating power negotiating with themselves than a brand new college hockey league has negotiating with a new television partner? I'm shocked again.

[82SiouxGuy]

Somebody needs to call them up and explain to them that they have no business with all those broadcasting mediums cause they aint no NFL.

And if you can't recognize the difference in negotiating power between the NFL and ANYONE else, you really don't understand the media.

[Redneksioux]

FS Detroit and FS North are regional networks, just like Midco (you do understand the difference between regional and national networks, don't you?). And obviously the Big 10 contract with Big 10 TV has a little more leeway. Who could have imagined that a TV contract with a network owned by the league might give league members a little more freedom? I'm shocked. And who could have imagined that they might have a little more negotiating power negotiating with themselves than a brand new college hockey league has negotiating with a new television partner? I'm shocked again.

Fs north and fs Detroit may be considered regional networks. But they are available on tv nationwide with a simple and inexpensive sports pack upgrade. Midco sn may also be considered a regional network but is available only in limited homes in one of the most sparsely populated area of the us. Nowhere close to the same regional category.

[82SiouxGuy]

Fs north and fs Detroit may be considered regional networks. But they are available on tv nationwide with a simple and inexpensive sports pack upgrade. Midco sn may also be considered a regional network but is available only in limited homes in one of the most sparsely populated area of the us. Nowhere close to the same regional category.

They are considered the same as far as contracts are concerned. We have had this discussion before. Midco is a brand new regional sports network in a lower population area. Therefore they have less negotiating power with cable systems and with satellite companies. Fox Sports North and Fox Sports Detroit are well established regional networks. They have been around for a much longer time and have signed contracts with popular professional teams. They have built up demand that the cable providers and satellite systems recognize. But legally they are all in the regional network category. And as we have established many times, there are levels of coverage in TV contracts. There are national contracts and there are regional. It doesn't matter how large the regional network is or isn't, they all count the same. The Midco deal isn't going anywhere for another 4 years, get over it.

[yababy8]

And if you can't recognize the difference in negotiating power between the NFL and ANYONE else, you really don't understand the media.

The only thing we need to understand about the media is they benefit from more following and more exposure gets more following. All of your examples of media contracts are invalid on the axis of time slot relevance. Give me an example where an exclusivity contract restricts covering a league or event on a day that the broadcaster is not covering said league/game/event? Come'on 82 your smarter than these poor attempts at dismissing a point which is frankly pointless to argue..

How bout we boil it down to this question; Does national exposure of NCHC games outside of CBS Sports TV(specifically games which are played/broadcast on days in which CBS Sports TV is NOT broadcasting a game) have an overall benefit, detriment, or no affect to viewership of NCHC games on CBS Sports TV? What do YOU think??

[82SiouxGuy]

The only thing we need to understand about the media is they benefit from more following and more exposure gets more following. All of your examples of media contracts are invalid on the axis of time slot relevance. Give me an example where an exclusivity contract restricts covering a league or event on a day that the broadcaster is not covering said league/game/event? Come'on 82 your smarter than these poor attempts at dismissing a point which is frankly pointless to argue..

How bout we boil it down to this question; Does national exposure of NCHC games outside of CBS Sports TV(specifically games which are played/broadcast on days in which CBS Sports TV is NOT broadcasting a game) have an overall benefit, detriment, or no affect to viewership of NCHC games on CBS Sports TV? What do YOU think??

It doesn't matter what I think, I'm not a party to the contract. It matters what the parties to the contract think. For instance, some teams (both college and pros) don't believe in broadcasting games on television unless the games are sold out. They think that people will stay home and watch on TV rather than pay for a ticket. I think they're wrong, but no one cares what I think and it doesn't have any effect on the contracts. Networks want exclusivity.

How about this example. ESPN is the exclusive national TV provider for all NCAA championships other than Division I basketball and BCS football (the NCAA doesn't have the TV rights for bowl games or the BCS). Sometimes they will farm out the rights for individual early round games to regional networks. That's how Midco and FS North end up broadcasting UND regional hockey games. Sometimes the games are only shown on ESPN3 if they are shown at all. ESPN will not allow another national broadcaster to have rights to show any of the games because they want to be the "Exclusive Home of NCAA Championships". And a lot of those early round games just don't get broadcast even if someone else wants to broadcast them.

CBS Sports has the right to broadcast additional games over and above the announced schedule. They are willing to pay extra to have that exclusivity. It was announced that they will broadcast a minimum of 18 games per year. They believe that having an exclusive contract with the league is more important than allowing another network to have rights to some of those games to increase exposure. So it doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe on the subject. We aren't part of the negotiations or the contract.

[the green team]

I'm saying that other people disagree. Networks pay extra to be the exclusive home of something. CBS has paid extra for years to be the exclusive home of March Madness even though they could only show 1 game at a time. It is only in recent years that they have been forced to use partner networks to show more games because of demand from the public to watch more, or have more choices. If CBS could get away with it they would go back to being the only outlet for the games.

The NFL started on 1 network. They have added more networks based on demand by the public to see more games. The NFL has used more networks because it makes them more money. The NFL didn't negotiate to go on multiple networks to increase demand, the demand for NFL football allowed them to overcome the networks desire for exclusivity. The networks still have some exclusivity in the TV contracts. CBS gets the home games for the AFC, Fox for the NFC, NBC has Sunday night, ESPN has Monday night and the NFL Network has Thursday. The other networks can't cross those lines.

In other cases, a single network is willing to pay a premium to be the exclusive home of that product. Exclusivity is often an important part of their advertising. I mentioned the NHL because I believe they only have 1 national network. I'm sure there are others. In non-sports, examples would be awards shows like the Oscars or the Grammys. Networks have exclusive rights to those shows. They don't even want other networks broadcasting from outside their location during the show itself. So, I'm pretty sure that the networks disagree with your theory of exposure. They give up exclusivity when forced to during the negotiations, when the demand is high enough that others will pay a similar fee without forcing the exclusivity. But they prefer to be exclusive when possible.

Leagues on the other hand are interested in more exposure. But they are willing to allow the exclusivity for a fee. It's a balancing act.

++++++! Game, Set and Match in understanding network media.

[the green team]

It doesn't matter what I think, I'm not a party to the contract. It matters what the parties to the contract think. For instance, some teams (both college and pros) don't believe in broadcasting games on television unless the games are sold out. They think that people will stay home and watch on TV rather than pay for a ticket. I think they're wrong, but no one cares what I think and it doesn't have any effect on the contracts. Networks want exclusivity.

How about this example. ESPN is the exclusive national TV provider for all NCAA championships other than Division I basketball and BCS football (the NCAA doesn't have the TV rights for bowl games or the BCS). Sometimes they will farm out the rights for individual early round games to regional networks. That's how Midco and FS North end up broadcasting UND regional hockey games. Sometimes the games are only shown on ESPN3 if they are shown at all. ESPN will not allow another national broadcaster to have rights to show any of the games because they want to be the "Exclusive Home of NCAA Championships". And a lot of those early round games just don't get broadcast even if someone else wants to broadcast them.

CBS Sports has the right to broadcast additional games over and above the announced schedule. They are willing to pay extra to have that exclusivity. It was announced that they will broadcast a minimum of 18 games per year. They believe that having an exclusive contract with the league is more important than allowing another network to have rights to some of those games to increase exposure. So it doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe on the subject. We aren't part of the negotiations or the contract.

Another response that demonstrates understanding of todays media.

[yababy8]

It doesn't matter what I think, I'm not a party to the contract.

I knew you would say that. You always go this way with debates. It is as if you are the "press secretary" for UND. Your answers are perfectly aligned with one who is. Imagine if someone asked Jay Carney or Condalisa Rice(to avoid political sidebars) what he/she though about a position the president was taking on an issue. The answer is they wouldn't. If they did they would in all likelihood get fired. Will you get fired if you answer the question? I'll ask you one more time:

Question; Does national exposure of NCHC games outside of CBS Sports TV(specifically games which are played/broadcast on days in which CBS Sports TV is NOT broadcasting a game) have an overall benefit, detriment, or no affect to viewership of NCHC games on CBS Sports TV? What do YOU think??

BTW it is quite common for one to voice what they think on a forum page such as this one..

also, (and please don't let your desire to argue this point distract you from answering the question above) every tax paying citizen of North Dakota is a "parties to the contract" UND is a PUBLIC institution.

• 
  
  

[yababy8]

++++++! Game, Set and Match in understanding network media.

Sure if having about a .05% understanding of media allows for such a game and a set and the match.

The NFL didn't negotiate to go on multiple networks to increase demand, the demand for NFL football allowed them to overcome the networks desire for exclusivity.

That makes SO MUCH sense.

[yababy8]

NCAA Tourney is another bad example. Would ESPN skip an entire day of the tournament and not show high demand games? No way!. Oh and if they did they would lose the contract in a New York minute..

The NCAA tournament is the climax of a season full of building fan base and ESPN shows every game they think the viewership numbers that warrant a demand for it. Is CBS Sports showing the biggest games with respect to viewership? ie are they all-in to their coverage like ESPN is in the tourney? No. They are skipping dozens of high demand games. In fact they are so damn uninvested in the "comprehensive" coverage which could garner an increase in interest/viewership they are not even covering two game series?? And anyone who knows a lick about college hockey knows that the Friday game is most often a build up to the Sat game.

[SiouxVolley]

I knew you would say that. You always go this way with debates. It is as if you are the "press secretary" for UND. Your answers are perfectly aligned with one who is. Imagine if someone asked Jay Carney or Condalisa Rice(to avoid political sidebars) what he/she though about a position the president was taking on an issue. The answer is they wouldn't. If they did they would in all likelihood get fired. Will you get fired if you answer the question? I'll ask you one more time:

Question; Does national exposure of NCHC games outside of CBS Sports TV(specifically games which are played/broadcast on days in which CBS Sports TV is NOT broadcasting a game) have an overall benefit, detriment, or no affect to viewership of NCHC games on CBS Sports TV? What do YOU think??

BTW it is quite common for one to voice what they think on a forum page such as this one..

also, (and please don't let your desire to argue this point distract you from answering the question above) every tax paying citizen of North Dakota is a "parties to the contract" UND is a PUBLIC institution.

• 
  
  

IMHO, UND and Faison made an early mistake, as they were desperate to exit the WCHA with Denver, CC, UMD, and UNO, to not agree to special UND TV rights with Fox Sports as a regional entity prior to joining the NCHC. Those rights got assigned to the league and there is no way they can take them back once the league was established. Notre Dame refused to join the league because it knew it broadcast rights were worth a hell of a lot more (plus it didn't want to contaminate its good name with lesser school). It was right: Hockey East met every single one of Notre Dames demands. Denver also knew it Rocky Mountain regional tv rights would never be in jeopardy. You never hear a UND official or media acknowledge those issues. UND misplayed its hand.

[82SiouxGuy]

I knew you would say that. You always go this way with debates. It is as if you are the "press secretary" for UND. Your answers are perfectly aligned with one who is. Imagine if someone asked Jay Carney or Condalisa Rice(to avoid political sidebars) what he/she though about a position the president was taking on an issue. The answer is they wouldn't. If they did they would in all likelihood get fired. Will you get fired if you answer the question? I'll ask you one more time:

Question; Does national exposure of NCHC games outside of CBS Sports TV(specifically games which are played/broadcast on days in which CBS Sports TV is NOT broadcasting a game) have an overall benefit, detriment, or no affect to viewership of NCHC games on CBS Sports TV? What do YOU think??

BTW it is quite common for one to voice what they think on a forum page such as this one..

also, (and please don't let your desire to argue this point distract you from answering the question above) every tax paying citizen of North Dakota is a "parties to the contract" UND is a PUBLIC institution.

I don't wear my heart on my sleeve, unlike a bunch of people. I'm not hear to complain about things. I didn't join the forum to constantly inject my opinion. I joined to trade information. Sorry if that bothers you so much. I've never seen anyone get so upset because I didn't throw in a meaningless opinion. And it would be hard for me to get fired since I don't work for UND in any way, although I highly doubt that anyone at UND would care about my answer either way.

My opinion is that allowing UND and the other schools to make other TV deals would be in the best interests of the schools, would help give them more exposure, and may help build interest in the NCHC. That might help CBS Sports in the long term. But I don't know for sure whether exclusivity for the network actually helps or hurts viewership on CBS Sports for the NCHC. I don't work for the network either and I have never done any reading on market research done on the subject. So I have no clue about the long term results.

[82SiouxGuy]

Sure if having about a .05% understanding of media allows for such a game and a set and the match.

That makes SO MUCH sense.

The NFL has more power than the media during the negotiations. Is that really so hard for you to understand? The NFL is the 800 pound gorilla so they get what they want. The networks would each like as much exclusivity as they could get. Each network would love to have the entire NFL to itself. They settle for having as much exclusivity as the NFL allows them based on how much the networks are willing to spend. That's why there are 5 networks broadcasting games. It isn't because the NFL is trying to increase exposure.

[82SiouxGuy]

NCAA Tourney is another bad example. Would ESPN skip an entire day of the tournament and not show high demand games? No way!. Oh and if they did they would lose the contract in a New York minute..

The NCAA tournament is the climax of a season full of building fan base and ESPN shows every game they think the viewership numbers that warrant a demand for it. Is CBS Sports showing the biggest games with respect to viewership? ie are they all-in to their coverage like ESPN is in the tourney? No. They are skipping dozens of high demand games. In fact they are so damn uninvested in the "comprehensive" coverage which could garner an increase in interest/viewership they are not even covering two game series?? And anyone who knows a lick about college hockey knows that the Friday game is most often a build up to the Sat game.

The whole flaw in this argument is the "high demand games" thing you're throwing around. There aren't high demand college hockey games. Especially in the regular season. There is a fairly small, pretty loyal audience. Plus, anyone that knows anything about television knows that viewership is lowest on Friday and Saturday nights. College hockey is their answer to fill the Friday night schedule.

I haven't looked at CBS Sports full schedule, but I would guess that they are showing college football and college basketball on Saturday nights. College football is #1 for sports viewing on Saturdays in the fall and college football is #1 in sports viewing on Saturdays during the winter. Neither has a big history on Friday nights. Both are going to dwarf college hockey for viewership. That's why they want college hockey to show on Friday but they aren't showing games on Saturday. They're going to show what is going to make them the most money and that's football and basketball.

[yababy8]

The whole flaw in this argument is the "high demand games" thing you're throwing around. There aren't high demand college hockey games. Especially in the regular season. There is a fairly small, pretty loyal audience. Plus, anyone that knows anything about television knows that viewership is lowest on Friday and Saturday nights. College hockey is their answer to fill the Friday night schedule.

When I said high demand games, I was meaning relatively. I think it is actually a mute point because between ESPN II and ESPNU and ESPN internet I think pretty much every game is covered. It is simply not an apples to apples argument.

[yababy8]

My opinion is that allowing UND and the other schools to make other TV deals would be in the best interests of the schools, would help give them more exposure, and may help build interest in the NCHC. That might help CBS Sports in the long term.

I suppose that is the best I'm going to get. Bottom line is that it is a no brainer that having other games on national TV is going to be good for everyone and the fact that is was disallowed in the contract is a failure on all of those who agreed to the deal.

I don't wear my heart on my sleeve, unlike a bunch of people. I'm not hear to complain about things. I didn't join the forum to constantly inject my opinion.

Don't make me ask if you agree that something like this is appropriate to debate on a forum? I'm to tired to pin you down on this one. AND don't say it has already been vetted out on the forums so it's old news. The negative effects of the horrendous contract are only now having their detrimental effect. ie season of change has only just begun. So this is an absolutely appropriate time to be having this discussion. Many people are just becoming aware of what has been lost now.

I specifically waited until now to voice my distain for what has been done/undone. I am not complaining, I am attempting to do my part to effectuate changes in the administration at UND which I feel should be made. Just doin my part..

[yababy8]

IMHO, UND and Faison made an early mistake, as they were desperate to exit the WCHA with Denver, CC, UMD, and UNO, to not agree to special UND TV rights with Fox Sports as a regional entity prior to joining the NCHC. Those rights got assigned to the league and there is no way they can take them back once the league was established. Notre Dame refused to join the league because it knew it broadcast rights were worth a hell of a lot more (plus it didn't want to contaminate its good name with lesser school). It was right: Hockey East met every single one of Notre Dames demands. Denver also knew it Rocky Mountain regional tv rights would never be in jeopardy. You never hear a UND official or media acknowledge those issues. UND misplayed its hand.

I think there is a good chance you are on the money with this. But to me this administration has done the wrong thing in matters of grave consequence more than one time and further if what you say is the case then the admisistration should fess up to their error. But instead they act as if all they do is the best and anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't get the real truth of things.

[southpaw]

I think there is a good chance you are on the money with this. But to me this administration has done the wrong thing in matters of grave consequence more than one time and further if what you say is the case then the admisistration should fess up to their error. But instead they act as if all they do is the best and anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't get the real truth of things.

How does one go about forcing special tv rights to a conference?

[kim]

Bad Deal for UND!

Definitely a big step backwards for the program!!

This is going to hurt for a long time!!! Extreme damage to the fan base and program in the long run! TV Contracts rule sports and UND gave away the golden egg that provided the national exposure that made it great. How do you think the UND fan base expanded so rapidly over the past decade. It was the TV exposure.

The suits at UND made a mistake of epic proportions....Fire Faison!