CBSSN, one last rant, maybe

[southpaw]

Who says that cable companies can not pick up ROOTS all over the country? They have three divisions but still are a single network.

When television companies are created they must declare either regional or national status. If a company like ROOT is going to focus solely on Colorado/Rocky Mountain sports then it's going to want to designate itself as regional. That makes it more likely it will be on a standard cable package, which it is. If it decides it wants to be national, then it will likely be placed on a sports tier in a digital package, which FCS is on most cable systems.

[smokey the cat]

When television companies are created they must declare either regional or national status. If a company like ROOT is going to focus solely on Colorado/Rocky Mountain sports then it's going to want to designate itself as regional. That makes it more likely it will be on a standard cable package, which it is. If it decides it wants to be national, then it will likely be placed on a sports tier in a digital package, which FCS is on most cable systems.

So what is there to stop cable companies to put them on the sport tiers, as is my point. Nothing. Since both Dish and Direct carry ROOTS, albiet, they "technically" are a regional network satlite pick them up so then cable can also.

[southpaw]

he doesn't...he is just blowing smoke!

aka bar talk!

Not everyone is at the bar before noon like you

Somewhat curious as to how you know what FCS numbers are.

Because I work in college sports broadcasting. I can't bring a printed out report with specific numbers but it's pretty easy to infer based on numbers that have been released in the past. Games carried on NBCSN, a channel that is available on a standard package on most TVs throughout the US, only average 68,000 viewers last year. Those numbers were significantly lower for teams in the west regardless of how good of a matchup it would be. It has been shown that only a fraction of people who purchase cable or satellite also get the sports package that allows them to get channels like FCS. There is much more that goes into determining the actual viewers but that's a simple explanation based off one network.

Additionally, despite having the entire schedule set for last year FCS did not have advertising during UND hockey games. They aired internal promotions which actually cost the network money to air. If UND (or any college hockey) was a money-maker for FCS they would be able to sell even ridiculously cheap advertising just to recover some of the costs. To them (and they know the actual numbers) it wasn't worth it to advertise.

[smokey the cat]

Not everyone is at the bar before noon like you

Because I work in college sports broadcasting. I can't bring a printed out report with specific numbers but it's pretty easy to infer based on numbers that have been released in the past. Games carried on NBCSN, a channel that is available on a standard package on most TVs throughout the US, only average 68,000 viewers last year. Those numbers were significantly lower for teams in the west regardless of how good of a matchup it would be. It has been shown that only a fraction of people who purchase cable or satellite also get the sports package that allows them to get channels like FCS. There is much more that goes into determining the actual viewers but that's a simple explanation based off one network.

Additionally, despite having the entire schedule set for last year FCS did not have advertising during UND hockey games. They aired internal promotions which actually cost the network money to air. If UND (or any college hockey) was a money-maker for FCS they would be able to sell even ridiculously cheap advertising just to recover some of the costs. To them (and they know the actual numbers) it wasn't worth it to advertise.

Never figured that FCS could sell ad space fo UND games. Also never thought that UND made them any money. But then nothing that FCS shows makes them any money. I am sure all those high school sports, women's soccer, women's lacrosse games make them no money either. But what are their actual production costs to broadcast other stations feeds? Did they have to pay Midco for them? I have always been curious as to how many people really subscribe to the sport channels. Do you have a good educated guess? By the way I was not questioning your knowledge, because you do really seem to know what you are talking about, I was actually curious as to where you got the numbers.

[southpaw]

So what is there to stop cable companies to put them on the sport tiers, as is my point. Nothing. Since both Dish and Direct carry ROOTS, albiet, they "technically" are a regional network satlite pick them up so then cable can also.

The way cable and satellite agreements are setup. Cable can't carry out-of-region regional networks. For example: Comcast is a cable company that covers much of the U.S. However, every city that has Comcast has an intergovernmental agreement with the LOCAL Comcast office. In the FCC's eyes, there is no national cable company. It's all local cable companies. While that may be bad for some viewers, it's a very, very good thing for the cities themselves. They receive significantly more funding from the cable companies from those franchise agreements than they would if it was a national cable company. Part of that local agreement is that they only carry in-region channels.

Satellite only has to pay cities for using their phone lines, which is significantly cheaper than cable wiring throughout the city. Satellite is considered a national company in the FCC's eyes, just like Sirius/XM is different than local radio stations. Satellite is able to carry all of the channels because it doesn't have to abide by the local cable company rules. The cities don't get as much money but the viewers get more options.

Realize TV is really only 60 years old and the sports boom has only happened over the last 15 years. Things are evolving but there are a lot of rules in place that are there for a reason, although they may be outdated. Regardless, the FCC isn't going to change things soon.

[southpaw]

Never figured that FCS could sell ad space fo UND games. Also never thought that UND made them any money. But then nothing that FCS shows makes them any money. I am sure all those high school sports, women's soccer, women's lacrosse games make them no money either. I have always been curious as to how many people really subscribe to the sport channels. Do you have a good educated guess? By the way I was not questioning your knowledge, because you do really seem to know what you are talking about, I was actually curious as to where you got the numbers.

It's generally 20% of a market at most. Some sports-crazed cities, like Boston, are obviously going to be higher. But overall it is about 20%. With HD exploding and FCS only offering a limited HD channel it makes FCS even less-watched than before. People don't accidentally turn to an SD FCS channel anymore. UND is much more likely to get a casual viewer and expand national presence via CBSSN than FCS because of number of viewers.

I do know the numbers for Colorado Springs. There are 78,000 Comcast subscribers in town and only 12,000 homes have the sports package. This is in a town of 450,000 people.

FCS can sell ad space over UND games (and any other games) that they air. They actually do sell ad space for some of the Big12 football games they carry. FCS is a subsidiary of Fox Sports and they have an agreement to show Big12 and PAC-10 football and basketball. FCS picks up some games and they advertise because there are enough viewers to justify it.

[smokey the cat]

The way cable and satellite agreements are setup. Cable can't carry out-of-region regional networks. For example: Comcast is a cable company that covers much of the U.S. However, every city that has Comcast has an intergovernmental agreement with the LOCAL Comcast office. In the FCC's eyes, there is no national cable company. It's all local cable companies. While that may be bad for some viewers, it's a very, very good thing for the cities themselves. They receive significantly more funding from the cable companies from those franchise agreements than they would if it was a national cable company. Part of that local agreement is that they only carry in-region channels.

Satellite only has to pay cities for using their phone lines, which is significantly cheaper than cable wiring throughout the city. Satellite is considered a national company in the FCC's eyes, just like Sirius/XM is different than local radio stations. Satellite is able to carry all of the channels because it doesn't have to abide by the local cable company rules. The cities don't get as much money but the viewers get more options.

Realize TV is really only 60 years old and the sports boom has only happened over the last 15 years. Things are evolving but there are a lot of rules in place that are there for a reason, although they may be outdated. Regardless, the FCC isn't going to change things soon.

Thank you for that. I understand what you are saying.

[Smoggy]

And that's where I believe people underestimate the benefits of this contract. Had NBCSN gone to the NCHC with Notre Dame I would have fully expected Hockey East or the ECAC to sign the exclusivity agreement with CBSSN. In CBS you have a national network that has shown has willingness and a desire to broadcast college hockey.

For Hockey East, the exclusivity clause would have meant 16 games combined throughout the league would not have been able to be aired on FCS (12)or NBCSN (4) this year. That's it. The benefits of having 18 games on CBSSN vs 16 on FCS/NBCSN are definitely worth it. FCS broadcasts often don't hit 10,000 viewers. So to trade 18 CBSSN games for those 4 NBCSN games is a great deal, regardless of any exclusivity clause.

Only two schools in all of college hockey would suffer from an exclusive contract like the one with CBSSN. That is UND and Notre Dame. There are no other schools in a similar situation to UND. 57 of 59 schools likely would have voted in favor of this deal.

Edit: The Big10 schools couldn't accept a deal like this if they were in the B10 conference because the B10 network is considered a national network and the conference wouldn't allow that. So 51 of 59 schools would be in favor of the contract.

Isn't the B1G Network 49% owned by Fox Sports? So they kind of end up being exclusive since Michigan and Minnesota are aired on those. Wisconsin is one that I can't figure out. They used to have some games on FSN-Wisconsin, but they were often a different local station. I don't think they've been on in last couple years.

[southpaw]

Isn't the B1G Network 49% owned by Fox Sports? So they kind of end up being exclusive since Michigan and Minnesota are aired on those. Wisconsin is one that I can't figure out. They used to have some games on FSN-Wisconsin, but they were often a different local station. I don't think they've been on in last couple years.

There are three tiers of sports broadcasting rights. Tier one is usually for national networks or conference networks like the Big Ten or NBC sports network. Once the tier one rights have either been taken or passed over then it goes on to tier 2 rights. Those go to regional networks like Fox Sports north. Tier 3 rights are usually the Internet feed which is sold to Neulion for Und.

The NCHC deal states that all tier one rights go to CBS sports network. The Big Ten network chooses which tier 1 rights it wants to keep and allows the schools to sign contracts for any available games.

[MafiaMan]

The NCHC exists to make sure each school has a vote in the process. Had the NCHC formed in the early 90's and UND was invited to join, would you be cool with UND having a lesser voice because hockey wasn't as popular? I imagine you were one of the people screaming for Minnesota and Wisconsin hockey to have more power in the WCHA because they're bigger schools with more followers than UND. You wouldn't want UND to be considered second fiddle in the WCHA so why do you expect other schools to feel that way in the NCHC?

But I thought UND voted with the 'big schools' in the WCHA?

[southpaw]

But I thought UND voted with the 'big schools' in the WCHA?

They did. Compared to Mankato, Tech and Anchorage UND was considered one of the big schools. Compared to Minnesota, it was clear UND was considered lower.

In the NCHC, UND isn't a big school or a little school. They are on similar footing as all of the other schools.

[Goon]

This is the first I've ever heard of this. Would you care to go into greater detail so that I know you aren't just making things up?

They don't sell out their building. Go to USCHO.com and look at the stats. You ahve the internet google it.

[cberkas]

They don't sell out their building. Go to USCHO.com and look at the stats. You ahve the internet google it.

You could also add that Wisconsin is rarely on Fox Sports North Wisconsin.

[smokey the cat]

You could also add that Wisconsin is rarely on Fox Sports North Wisconsin.

Bucks basketball takes priority.

[sprig]

Here's the count of NCHC televised games with the exclusive CBSSN contract (1st number is the number of times the teams are on nationally on just CBS, the second the number they'd be on with ND having the national FCS contract).

North Dakota 6-17

Miami 4-2

CC 4-2

Denver 2-0

SCSU 3-2

WMU 4-2

MDU 2-2

Omaha 1-2

Totals 26-29

Exactly how much did the teams benefit from voting for the exclusivity contract (Note: this doesn't include games on regional networks, that viewers can access nationally with satellite sports paks -ie Denver on ROOT, or on FTA, where many games can be found). The big hit was taken by UND alone, hence my "idiotic" conspiracy theory.

[Goon]

Bucks basketball takes priority.

Over hockey, even in their arena, It's like hockey is second fiddle. Oh wait...

Edited November 18, 2013 by Goon

[southpaw]

Here's the count of NCHC televised games with the exclusive CBSSN contract (1st number is the number of times the teams are on nationally on just CBS, the second the number they'd be on with ND having the national FCS contract).

North Dakota 6-17

Miami 4-2

CC 4-2

Denver 2-0

SCSU 3-2

WMU 4-2

MDU 2-2

Omaha 1-2

Totals 26-29

Exactly how much did the teams benefit from voting for the exclusivity contract (Note: this doesn't include games on regional networks, that viewers can access nationally with satellite sports paks -ie Denver on ROOT, or on FTA, where many games can be found). The big hit was taken by UND alone, hence my "idiotic" conspiracy theory.

Thank you for proving my point. All but UNO have at least the same number of games with the contract. Games on CBSSN are better produced, HD broadcasts available on an easier channel for people to get. They also aren't all road games for the 7 schools.

You can assume conspiracy against UND but your own numbers show the contract is beneficial to a majority of schools in the conference.

This also doesn't include the three playoff games that would not be aired on FCS.

[82SiouxGuy]

Thank you for proving my point. All but UNO have at least the same number of games with the contract. Games on CBSSN are better produced, HD broadcasts available on an easier channel for people to get. They also aren't all road games for the 7 schools.

You can assume conspiracy against UND but your own numbers show the contract is beneficial to a majority of schools in the conference.

This also doesn't include the three playoff games that would not be aired on FCS.

I think that there's another factor that hasn't been mentioned. I believe that the NCHC is getting paid by CBS Sports for the TV rights. No one was paid by FCS. So the other schools are getting a financial benefit and more exposure by taking the CBS Sports deal. That sounds like a no brainer for those schools.

[southpaw]

I think that there's another factor that hasn't been mentioned. I believe that the NCHC is getting paid by CBS Sports for the TV rights. No one was paid by FCS. So the other schools are getting a financial benefit and more exposure by taking the CBS Sports deal. That sounds like a no brainer for those schools.

Especially since the goal of all 7 schools is to screw over UND as much as possible! I bet all of the schools voted to take UND's cut of the CBSSN contract.

[mksioux]

Notre Dame's demands were not just TV related. How many UND fans loved the preferential treatment Minnesota got in the league? It would have been significantly worse had the NCHC caved to Notre Dame's demands.

CBSSN likely would not have offered a teleivision package without the exclusivity clause. They had several other leagues they could go to and so they had bargaining power over the NCHC.

People vastly overestimate the number of people watching Sioux hockey on FCS. There are not millions of people tuning in each weekend to watch UND play. There is a reason UND and Midco were not getting any funding for broadcasting those games on FCS. There's a reason FCS only ran promos and no actual commercials during UND hockey broadcasts. You can't sell advertising to something that isn't going to be watched by a lot of people. Notre Dame and UND would not have received a bulk of that exposure. Notre Dame would have received 90% of the exposure.

The vote was never about forcing equality. It was "what is best for my school." For 7 of the 8 schools who weren't on national TV, it was about getting on national tv more. The CBSSN deal does that for those seven schools. That's why they voted yes.

Since you apparently have inside information, what were their other demands? I'm not sure they've been made public. At least I don't recall anything other than their TV deal being discussed.

I never claimed millions of people watched UND hockey. I fully acknowledge that the ratings were probably non-existent (like all programming on FCS). And I never tried to say UND's exposure with FCS was equivalent to Notre Dame's deal with NBCSN. I don't care if Notre Dame had something better, UND still would have had all their home games available on FCS. UND would have been better off with Notre Dame in the league. That's the main point I was making.

You may be right about the primary reason why most schools voted the way they did was based on getting on national TV more times. But I think it's more accurate to say 5 out of 6 rather than 7 out of 8. I don't think St. Cloud and Western Michigan are relevant to the discussion. The decision for an exclusivity deal was effectively made before they joined the conference, when the conference walked away from Notre Dame. But it's not like they got a huge upgrade in number of games by going with CBSSN. If you just look the raw number of national television appearances and add up the number of games that these 5 teams (CC, Denver, UMD, UNO and Miami) would have been on national TV through Notre Dame's and UND's deals, it probably would approach the number of times they'll be on CBSSN. Of course, they would have all been road games and on someone else's "production" so to speak. Certainly not as desirable for those schools than what they get with the CBSSN deal (neutrality, some home games, relative equality). So I think creating a conference-first mentality and creating some level of fairness in national TV appearances was at least a consideration for these schools. Of course I'm just speculating.

[southpaw]

Since you apparently have inside information, what were their other demands? I'm not sure they've been made public. At least I don't recall anything other than their TV deal being discussed.

I never claimed millions of people watched UND hockey. I fully acknowledge that the ratings were probably non-existent (like all programming on FCS). And I never tried to say UND's exposure with FCS was equivalent to Notre Dame's deal with NBCSN. I don't care if Notre Dame had something better, UND still would have had all their home games available on FCS. UND would have been better off with Notre Dame in the league. That's the main point I was making.

You may be right about the primary reason why most schools voted the way they did was based on getting on national TV more times. But I think it's more accurate to say 5 out of 6 rather than 7 out of 8. I don't think St. Cloud and Western Michigan are relevant to the discussion. The decision for an exclusivity deal was effectively made before they joined the conference, when the conference walked away from Notre Dame. But it's not like they got a huge upgrade in number of games by going with CBSSN. If you just look the raw number of national television appearances and add up the number of games that these 5 teams (CC, Denver, UMD, UNO and Miami) would have been on national TV through Notre Dame's and UND's deals, it probably would approach the number of times they'll be on CBSSN. Of course, they would have all been road games and on someone else's "production" so to speak. Certainly not as desirable for those schools than what they get with the CBSSN deal (neutrality, some home games, relative equality). So I think creating a conference-first mentality and creating some level of fairness in national TV appearances was at least a consideration for these schools. Of course I'm just speculating.

I don't know a lot of specifics on what Notre Dame's demands were, I just know they involved a lot more than just TV rights. And once you start making exceptions for one school, where do you draw the line?

Per you second paragraph... UND Broadcasting would have been better with Notre Dame in the league. There is a lot more that goes into happiness in a conference than just TV rights. UND had the TV rights it wanted in the WCHA but left the conference because there were a lot of other issues. Games on FCS has ALWAYS been an added bonus. I agree with you that the games should be on FCS and I'm disappointed they're not. I just understand the reasoning behind the conference (5 original schools, like you said) deciding to go with CBSSN.

For total number of games, if you include UND's 17 home conference games plus Notre Dame's 12 home games, it is already more than the CBSSN deal. That's great for UND and Notre Dame but looking at how the NBCSN deal breaks down for Hockey East, you see it's not so great for most of the conference:

ND: 12 home

BU: 1 home, 3 road

Umass: 1 home, 3 road

Northeastern: 3 road

Maine: 1 home, 2 road

BC: 1 home, 0 road

Providence: 0 games

UMass Lowell: 0 games

Merrimack: 0 games

Vermont: 0 games

The most successful team in NCAA hockey over the past 15 years has one game on national TV.

[ringneck28]

Over hockey, even in their arena, It's like hockey is second fiddle. Oh wait...

I'll chalk this one up to it being 6am in the morning when you posted, but Bucks play in Milwaukee and Wisconsin hockey is in Madison. Two different arenas.

[mksioux]

I don't know a lot of specifics on what Notre Dame's demands were, I just know they involved a lot more than just TV rights. And once you start making exceptions for one school, where do you draw the line?

Per you second paragraph... UND Broadcasting would have been better with Notre Dame in the league. There is a lot more that goes into happiness in a conference than just TV rights. UND had the TV rights it wanted in the WCHA but left the conference because there were a lot of other issues. Games on FCS has ALWAYS been an added bonus. I agree with you that the games should be on FCS and I'm disappointed they're not. I just understand the reasoning behind the conference (5 original schools, like you said) deciding to go with CBSSN.

For total number of games, if you include UND's 17 home conference games plus Notre Dame's 12 home games, it is already more than the CBSSN deal. That's great for UND and Notre Dame but looking at how the NBCSN deal breaks down for Hockey East, you see it's not so great for most of the conference:

ND: 12 home

BU: 1 home, 3 road

Umass: 1 home, 3 road

Northeastern: 3 road

Maine: 1 home, 2 road

BC: 1 home, 0 road

Providence: 0 games

UMass Lowell: 0 games

Merrimack: 0 games

Vermont: 0 games

The most successful team in NCAA hockey over the past 15 years has one game on national TV.

Sure, but Hockey East didn't have another team with a national TV deal (correct me if I'm wrong). If Notre Dame would have gone to the NCHC, you'd have two teams with national TV deals making the number of appearances for the other schools comparable to what they ended up getting out of the CBSSN deal. There are too many variables and unknowns to say for sure how many games they would have gotten (for instance, we don't even know whether W. Michigan and/or St. Cloud would have been added). But I think it's safe to say that going solely by number of games on national TV, it would have been close to comparable for the other schools. My point is that there probably were other considerations in play in addition to the number of games - such as getting home games and some neutrality and fairness that a league-deal delivers. And, like you said, there may been non-television reasons the Notre Dames talk fell apart. It would be interesting to see what their other demands were.

I wasn't setting forth some conspiracy theory that everyone was out to get UND. But I do think that the other members didn't favor a scenario where 1 or 2 teams in the conference had the vast majority of national TV games and probably preferred a more equitable system that a league-deal provided, where it was closer to equal among the members. That came, unfortunately, at UND's expense.

[sprig]

Thank you for proving my point.

You missed mine, which was, with no CBS deal, the national television exposure for the teams in the league would have differed minimally, only UND took the big hit. That does, however, not factor in the money the league got for the deal.

[smokey the cat]

Thank you for proving my point. All but UNO have at least the same number of games with the contract. Games on CBSSN are better produced, HD broadcasts available on an easier channel for people to get. They also aren't all road games for the 7 schools.

You can assume conspiracy against UND but your own numbers show the contract is beneficial to a majority of schools in the conference.

This also doesn't include the three playoff games that would not be aired on FCS.

If not for CBCCS would we even get to have watched these games?