(02-04-2024 04:05 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The networks need to be broken up and regulated again then there will be money for two leagues, a p2 and everyone else with a real TV package
Elect Trump and the deep state won’t controll our sports here in America
Sports illustrated was killed off on purpose

there is and will be money for both. P2 making billions and rest making millions.

(02-05-2024 01:11 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:05 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The networks need to be broken up and regulated again then there will be money for two leagues, a p2 and everyone else with a real TV package
Elect Trump and the deep state won’t controll our sports here in America
Sports illustrated was killed off on purpose

there is and will be money for both. P2 making billions and rest making millions.

I'll bet you a pizza on that... the golden days are over. It doesn't matter really if the P7 make millions, OSU makes millions WITHOUT the media, for example.

a few more trinkets from the media won't make a hill-o-beans differences when then big boys are making billions.

(02-04-2024 05:59 PM)CaliforniaCowboy Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:05 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The networks need to be broken up and regulated again then there will be money for two leagues, a p2 and everyone else with a real TV package
Elect Trump and the deep state won’t controll our sports here in America
Sports illustrated was killed off on purpose

LOL - that train left the station over 5 years ago, the future is not network TV.

if anything, blame the cord cutters

Don't agree with JHS55 either (Can't break up what is already multiple competing companies), but what do the networks have to do with cord cutting? They are broadcast TV. If anything, cord cutting improves broadcast TV.

I counted 55 games last regular season that had over 4 million viewers. only 5 were on ESPN/Cable the other 50 were broadcast TV. Guessing streaming did not have near that many, if any, over 4 million viewers.

(02-05-2024 09:03 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 05:59 PM)CaliforniaCowboy Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:05 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The networks need to be broken up and regulated again then there will be money for two leagues, a p2 and everyone else with a real TV package
Elect Trump and the deep state won’t controll our sports here in America
Sports illustrated was killed off on purpose

LOL - that train left the station over 5 years ago, the future is not network TV.

if anything, blame the cord cutters

Don't agree with JHS55 either (Can't break up what is already multiple competing companies), but what do the networks have to do with cord cutting? They are broadcast TV. If anything, cord cutting improves broadcast TV.

I counted 55 games last regular season that had over 4 million viewers. only 5 were on ESPN/Cable the other 50 were broadcast TV. Guessing streaming did not have near that many, if any, over 4 million viewers.

I suppose if you're going to use "that" definition of "Network".

Since most people do not use the "broadcast" aspect, then their only access is through their cable/satellite connection, or streaming via the Internet.

I watch ABC over Satellite, and have for 30 years because it give me access to other TV programming.

Most of the "money" comes from "ESPN", which is NOT technically a broadcast network, but they do show some of their contracted games over their ABC broadcast affiliate.

Same with FOX, most of their contractual money is via Fox Sports.

Cord cutting has led to ESPN cutting back on programming, talent, and being more restrictive on contract rights, which eventually led to the collapse of the Pac12 conference, and the G5 leagues getting pennies on the dollar for their product.

ESPN does not have to put product on broadcast TV, but do so because not everybody subscribes to ESPN. The NFL tried restricting access this year with Prime, and IMO that was a total failure.

Cord cutting has greatly impacted the money available though media contracts.

(02-06-2024 08:59 AM)CaliforniaCowboy Wrote:  

(02-05-2024 09:03 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 05:59 PM)CaliforniaCowboy Wrote:  

(02-04-2024 04:05 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The networks need to be broken up and regulated again then there will be money for two leagues, a p2 and everyone else with a real TV package
Elect Trump and the deep state won’t controll our sports here in America
Sports illustrated was killed off on purpose

LOL - that train left the station over 5 years ago, the future is not network TV.

if anything, blame the cord cutters

Don't agree with JHS55 either (Can't break up what is already multiple competing companies), but what do the networks have to do with cord cutting? They are broadcast TV. If anything, cord cutting improves broadcast TV.

I counted 55 games last regular season that had over 4 million viewers. only 5 were on ESPN/Cable the other 50 were broadcast TV. Guessing streaming did not have near that many, if any, over 4 million viewers.

I suppose if you're going to use "that" definition of "Network".

Since most people do not use the "broadcast" aspect, then their only access is through their cable/satellite connection, or streaming via the Internet.

I watch ABC over Satellite, and have for 30 years because it give me access to other TV programming.

Most of the "money" comes from "ESPN", which is NOT technically a broadcast network, but they do show some of their contracted games over their ABC broadcast affiliate.

Same with FOX, most of their contractual money is via Fox Sports.

Cord cutting has led to ESPN cutting back on programming, talent, and being more restrictive on contract rights, which eventually led to the collapse of the Pac12 conference, and the G5 leagues getting pennies on the dollar for their product.

ESPN does not have to put product on broadcast TV, but do so because not everybody subscribes to ESPN. The NFL tried restricting access this year with Prime, and IMO that was a total failure.

Cord cutting has greatly impacted the money available though media contracts.

If people only watched broadcast channels over cable then they would not have such a huge disparity in viewership over cable channels like ESPN.

For some reason I do not believe your statement that FOX uses Fox Sports as their big money channel considering the discrepancy in viewership. Also games on FOX and ABC are broken out in contracts so they are not the step children of the deals.

Good to know you watch broadcast channels over satellite for 30 years. I watch it over the air. Last bill, paid $50 about 10 years ago for a new decent antennae. Your example of your method of watching is no more valid than mine.

It says they are only doing this for the betterment of the student athletes. We can all rest easy knowing that and be grateful.

(02-06-2024 10:10 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  If people only watched broadcast channels over cable then they would not have such a huge disparity in viewership over cable channels like ESPN.

For some reason I do not believe your statement that FOX uses Fox Sports as their big money channel considering the discrepancy in viewership. Also games on FOX and ABC are broken out in contracts so they are not the step children of the deals.

Good to know you watch broadcast channels over satellite for 30 years. I watch it over the air. Last bill, paid $50 about 10 years ago for a new decent antennae. Your example of your method of watching is no more valid than mine.

That's just not how it works. Many people have cable or satellite but do not subscribe to the Sports channels, or only have "basic cable". There is no way to measure viewership of people that view over the public airways. That's just not how it works (please go look it up).

And bully for you that you don't have access to other cable programming. We could not have made it without cartoon network, Hallmark, HGTV, Discovery and all of the other channels that I gladly pay for. Does your "new decent antennae" get you those channels? And your antennae had to also be supplemented with a digital converter, right? We had to buy one of those for Dad a few years back when broadcast switched to digital.

The "networks" have higher ratings because ESPN and FOX put their best games there because of the advertising dollars, and they put those games in the best time slots. There is no way to determine whether the viewers are using cable, satellite or an antennae.

(02-07-2024 09:00 AM)CaliforniaCowboy Wrote:  

(02-06-2024 10:10 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  If people only watched broadcast channels over cable then they would not have such a huge disparity in viewership over cable channels like ESPN.

For some reason I do not believe your statement that FOX uses Fox Sports as their big money channel considering the discrepancy in viewership. Also games on FOX and ABC are broken out in contracts so they are not the step children of the deals.

Good to know you watch broadcast channels over satellite for 30 years. I watch it over the air. Last bill, paid $50 about 10 years ago for a new decent antennae. Your example of your method of watching is no more valid than mine.

That's just not how it works. Many people have cable or satellite but do not subscribe to the Sports channels, or only have "basic cable". There is no way to measure viewership of people that view over the public airways. That's just not how it works (please go look it up).

And bully for you that you don't have access to other cable programming. We could not have made it without cartoon network, Hallmark, HGTV, Discovery and all of the other channels that I gladly pay for. Does your "new decent antennae" get you those channels? And your antennae had to also be supplemented with a digital converter, right? We had to buy one of those for Dad a few years back when broadcast switched to digital.

The "networks" have higher ratings because ESPN and FOX put their best games there because of the advertising dollars, and they put those games in the best time slots. There is no way to determine whether the viewers are using cable, satellite or an antennae.

This whole post is funny (and lacking much knowledge).

"There is no way to measure viewership of people that view over the public airways. That's just not how it works (please go look it up)."
So you are saying they make up all the viewership numbers? IF they can't measure it, how do you think they come up with ratings? (please go look it up)

bully for you that you support the cable industry with a bunch of money. They appreciate it. It is amazing what you can do when you don't spend all your time on the couch watching TV. Go out in public, visit museums, go to parks, work on crafts and making things, draw a picture, learn a skill such as working on a car, actually participate in sports, etc, etc..

If I do watch TV, there are dozens of channels to watch that interest me. In Houston there are over 150 channels over the air broadcast.

PS digital converter boxes went away decade ago. TVs actually work directly with an antennae. Might need to catch up on technology.

If, as you say, more people watch TV for the cable channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, FS1) then why do they put their best games on the broadcast channels since there are advertising on all the channels? Why do you think the advertising dollars are higher there than cable?

(02-07-2024 11:35 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  

(02-07-2024 09:00 AM)CaliforniaCowboy Wrote:  

(02-06-2024 10:10 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  If people only watched broadcast channels over cable then they would not have such a huge disparity in viewership over cable channels like ESPN.

For some reason I do not believe your statement that FOX uses Fox Sports as their big money channel considering the discrepancy in viewership. Also games on FOX and ABC are broken out in contracts so they are not the step children of the deals.

Good to know you watch broadcast channels over satellite for 30 years. I watch it over the air. Last bill, paid $50 about 10 years ago for a new decent antennae. Your example of your method of watching is no more valid than mine.

That's just not how it works. Many people have cable or satellite but do not subscribe to the Sports channels, or only have "basic cable". There is no way to measure viewership of people that view over the public airways. That's just not how it works (please go look it up).

And bully for you that you don't have access to other cable programming. We could not have made it without cartoon network, Hallmark, HGTV, Discovery and all of the other channels that I gladly pay for. Does your "new decent antennae" get you those channels? And your antennae had to also be supplemented with a digital converter, right? We had to buy one of those for Dad a few years back when broadcast switched to digital.

The "networks" have higher ratings because ESPN and FOX put their best games there because of the advertising dollars, and they put those games in the best time slots. There is no way to determine whether the viewers are using cable, satellite or an antennae.

This whole post is funny (and lacking much knowledge).

"There is no way to measure viewership of people that view over the public airways. That's just not how it works (please go look it up)."
So you are saying they make up all the viewership numbers? IF they can't measure it, how do you think they come up with ratings? (please go look it up)

bully for you that you support the cable industry with a bunch of money. They appreciate it. It is amazing what you can do when you don't spend all your time on the couch watching TV. Go out in public, visit museums, go to parks, work on crafts and making things, draw a picture, learn a skill such as working on a car, actually participate in sports, etc, etc..

If I do watch TV, there are dozens of channels to watch that interest me. In Houston there are over 150 channels over the air broadcast.

PS digital converter boxes went away decade ago. TVs actually work directly with an antennae. Might need to catch up on technology.

If, as you say, more people watch TV for the cable channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, FS1) then why do they put their best games on the broadcast channels since there are advertising on all the channels? Why do you think the advertising dollars are higher there than cable?

you're not making any dang sense. Time for me to move to another topic.

Viewership numbers are via Neilson ratings that samples 40,000 households. It tracks what you are watching, not how you obtained it.

I DID NOT SAY more people watch TV for the cable channels, I said many people that watch network TV do so over a cable or satellite connection.

you have no freaking idea what you're talking about or you would not be asking me to explain it to you. More people watch broadcast networks because they have more viewers, like I already explained to you, so are via antennae and some over other communications methods, streaming, cable, satellite, etc. Most households have a method to get the broadcast network channels, but not all households subscribe to ESPN, or to sports channels at all.

do you have a point to make, it does not sound like it. Anyway, moving on (I suggest you look this stuff up instead of continually asking me)

(02-08-2024 12:34 PM)CaliforniaCowboy Wrote:  

(02-07-2024 11:35 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  

(02-07-2024 09:00 AM)CaliforniaCowboy Wrote:  

(02-06-2024 10:10 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  If people only watched broadcast channels over cable then they would not have such a huge disparity in viewership over cable channels like ESPN.

For some reason I do not believe your statement that FOX uses Fox Sports as their big money channel considering the discrepancy in viewership. Also games on FOX and ABC are broken out in contracts so they are not the step children of the deals.

Good to know you watch broadcast channels over satellite for 30 years. I watch it over the air. Last bill, paid $50 about 10 years ago for a new decent antennae. Your example of your method of watching is no more valid than mine.

That's just not how it works. Many people have cable or satellite but do not subscribe to the Sports channels, or only have "basic cable". There is no way to measure viewership of people that view over the public airways. That's just not how it works (please go look it up).

And bully for you that you don't have access to other cable programming. We could not have made it without cartoon network, Hallmark, HGTV, Discovery and all of the other channels that I gladly pay for. Does your "new decent antennae" get you those channels? And your antennae had to also be supplemented with a digital converter, right? We had to buy one of those for Dad a few years back when broadcast switched to digital.

The "networks" have higher ratings because ESPN and FOX put their best games there because of the advertising dollars, and they put those games in the best time slots. There is no way to determine whether the viewers are using cable, satellite or an antennae.

This whole post is funny (and lacking much knowledge).

"There is no way to measure viewership of people that view over the public airways. That's just not how it works (please go look it up)."
So you are saying they make up all the viewership numbers? IF they can't measure it, how do you think they come up with ratings? (please go look it up)

bully for you that you support the cable industry with a bunch of money. They appreciate it. It is amazing what you can do when you don't spend all your time on the couch watching TV. Go out in public, visit museums, go to parks, work on crafts and making things, draw a picture, learn a skill such as working on a car, actually participate in sports, etc, etc..

If I do watch TV, there are dozens of channels to watch that interest me. In Houston there are over 150 channels over the air broadcast.

PS digital converter boxes went away decade ago. TVs actually work directly with an antennae. Might need to catch up on technology.

If, as you say, more people watch TV for the cable channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, FS1) then why do they put their best games on the broadcast channels since there are advertising on all the channels? Why do you think the advertising dollars are higher there than cable?

you're not making any dang sense. Time for me to move to another topic.

Viewership numbers are via Neilson ratings that samples 40,000 households. It tracks what you are watching, not how you obtained it.

I DID NOT SAY more people watch TV for the cable channels, I said many people that watch network TV do so over a cable or satellite connection.

you have no freaking idea what you're talking about or you would not be asking me to explain it to you. More people watch broadcast networks because they have more viewers, like I already explained to you, so are via antennae and some over other communications methods, streaming, cable, satellite, etc. Most households have a method to get the broadcast network channels, but not all households subscribe to ESPN, or to sports channels at all.

do you have a point to make, it does not sound like it. Anyway, moving on (I suggest you look this stuff up instead of continually asking me)

" It tracks what you are watching, not how you obtained it."
Incorrect. They know how it is obtained and where they get the data from.

"(I suggest you look this stuff up instead of continually asking me)"
Did not ask you anything other than how cord cutting was tied to networks (answer: one is cable one is not). Simply pointed out where the following statement was not correct.

"the future is not network TV."
This is simply wrong and not part of cord-cutting per your post I responded to. FOX, ABC, CBS, and NBC are not going anywhere.

Your welcome to move on since you cannot grasp these basics.

(02-08-2024 07:28 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  " It tracks what you are watching, not how you obtained it."
Incorrect. They know how it is obtained and where they get the data from.

"(I suggest you look this stuff up instead of continually asking me)"
Did not ask you anything other than how cord cutting was tied to networks (answer: one is cable one is not). Simply pointed out where the following statement was not correct.

"the future is not network TV."
This is simply wrong and not part of cord-cutting per your post I responded to. FOX, ABC, CBS, and NBC are not going anywhere.

Your welcome to move on since you cannot grasp these basics.

Enough of your nonsense....

Nielsen gear stealthily picks up a series of inaudible tones embedded within each network’s signal.


https://www.sportico.com/feature/tv-ratings-how-television-ratings-work-1234750969/#!

The networks identify themselves and the networks do not know how their programming is getting into your home. They simply send out a network identifying signal that is picked up by Neilson.

(02-09-2024 09:51 AM)CaliforniaCowboy Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 07:28 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  " It tracks what you are watching, not how you obtained it."
Incorrect. They know how it is obtained and where they get the data from.

"(I suggest you look this stuff up instead of continually asking me)"
Did not ask you anything other than how cord cutting was tied to networks (answer: one is cable one is not). Simply pointed out where the following statement was not correct.

"the future is not network TV."
This is simply wrong and not part of cord-cutting per your post I responded to. FOX, ABC, CBS, and NBC are not going anywhere.

Your welcome to move on since you cannot grasp these basics.

Enough of your nonsense....

Nielsen gear stealthily picks up a series of inaudible tones embedded within each network’s signal.


https://www.sportico.com/feature/tv-ratings-how-television-ratings-work-1234750969/#!

The networks identify themselves and the networks do not know how their programming is getting into your home. They simply send out a network identifying signal that is picked up by Neilson.

You added the last sentence yourself. It was not in the article you linked.

Here is a link from Nielsen that shows break downs by source.
https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/the-gauge/

Nice to shift focus from the intent of the initial conversation too. Your focus on measurements does not detract that Network TV is not going away like you said it was. Guess if your wrong there, shift to another side stat.

I'm done.

(02-10-2024 11:14 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  

(02-09-2024 09:51 AM)CaliforniaCowboy Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 07:28 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  " It tracks what you are watching, not how you obtained it."
Incorrect. They know how it is obtained and where they get the data from.

"(I suggest you look this stuff up instead of continually asking me)"
Did not ask you anything other than how cord cutting was tied to networks (answer: one is cable one is not). Simply pointed out where the following statement was not correct.

"the future is not network TV."
This is simply wrong and not part of cord-cutting per your post I responded to. FOX, ABC, CBS, and NBC are not going anywhere.

Your welcome to move on since you cannot grasp these basics.

Enough of your nonsense....

Nielsen gear stealthily picks up a series of inaudible tones embedded within each network’s signal.


https://www.sportico.com/feature/tv-ratings-how-television-ratings-work-1234750969/#!

The networks identify themselves and the networks do not know how their programming is getting into your home. They simply send out a network identifying signal that is picked up by Neilson.

You added the last sentence yourself. It was not in the article you linked.

Here is a link from Nielsen that shows break downs by source.
https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/the-gauge/

Nice to shift focus from the intent of the initial conversation too. Your focus on measurements does not detract that Network TV is not going away like you said it was. Guess if your wrong there, shift to another side stat.

I'm done.

you clearly did not read that link you just posted. It says nothing about HOW one watches Broadcast Networks, it only talks about whether folks are watching ABC or ESPN (for example).

and our discussion was regarding college football and media rights.