# Fox Sports One (and Two)



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I noticed this started up this weekend and Fox (the OTA network) has been shilling this for days and even during the SNF they had last night. As of now, there's nothing compelling to watch on it. Eventually they will have some MLB games, so I might watch it then. The NFL show they were pushing just seems like the normal Fox pre-game show with a "B" team crew. I'll pass.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

I think it's an attempt to win back the audience it's lost through losing F1 and the EPL to NBC.

Need to offer way more than UFC and Nascar for me, though.

I understand Fox Soccer is due to disappear to - it's becoming FXX I think.


----------



## jjd_87 (Jan 31, 2011)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I think it's an attempt to win back the audience it's lost through losing F1 and the EPL to NBC.
> 
> Need to offer way more than UFC and Nascar for me, though.
> 
> I understand Fox Soccer is due to disappear to - it's becoming FXX I think.


The had like 10 live fights Saturday. That wasn't good for you?


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Nope. Don't watch UFC!

(...or Nascar, for that matter!).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Well, I think it's that, and a LOT more. This is them taking their shot at ESPN, at a time when ESPN could be vulnerable. Plus CBS and NBC both have their own Sports nets as well now. But I think Fox looks at the channel to take a run at ESPN and that's why the big push. They have baseball to put on there, and plenty of college sports, just like ESPN. They will make a run at the NBA eventually as well. Oh, and they have Regis


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

As an MMA fan, the UFC presentation and production Saturday night was fantastic. :up:


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

For now, it's basically still what Speed was. But give it some time to develop.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DirecTV has an odd configuration for these two channels. "ONE" is in the low 200s and "TWO" is in the 600s. I imagine they will move them together a la ESPN at some point.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Fox signed a 12 year deal with the USGA that begins in 2015


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

cherry ghost said:


> Fox signed a 12 year deal with the USGA that begins in 2015


Does that mean you have to have cable or satellite to see the US Open?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Just a random thought about the proliferation of Sports Networks. I wonder if this is the beginning of the end of OTA networks carrying major sporting events? Outside of the NFL, are the OTAs even making money on those deals? Most of the CFB Bowls are now on ESPN or other cable networks, including some real MAJOR ones, such as the Rose and Sugar. Most major sport playoff games with the exception of the NFL is on cable now too? So could it be that the big 4 networks are going to move everything over to their own Sports Nets where they don't have to deal with affiliates, and can get full advertising dollars?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

jsmeeker said:


> Does that mean you have to have cable or satellite to see the US Open?


I think for the Men's, and maybe Senior's and Women's, the Thurday and Friday rounds will be on Fox Sports 1 and the weekend will be on Fox.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Does that mean you have to have cable or satellite to see the US Open?


See my post.

As I said, we already see major bowl games only on cable channels, I wonder if many other major events move to cable as well. Major golf and tennis, are two examples we could see. I wonder things like the Kentucky Derby, or the Indy 500 or one off events wind up on cable? It would not shock me, that in ten years, the ONLY major sport on OTA is the NFL.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Just a random thought about the proliferation of Sports Networks. I wonder if this is the beginning of the end of OTA networks carrying major sporting events? Outside of the NFL, are the OTAs even making money on those deals? Most of the CFB Bowls are now on ESPN or other cable networks, including some real MAJOR ones, such as the Rose and Sugar. Most major sport playoff games with the exception of the NFL is on cable now too? So could it be that the big 4 networks are going to move everything over to their own Sports Nets where they don't have to deal with affiliates, and can get full advertising dollars?


OTA still has a lot of college football on during the regular season. Lots of high profile games.

But I think we are certainly seeing the trend as you describe it.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

When college football season starts, you'll probably see games on this network that were on FX for the last couple of years. I'm sure they timed their launch so they were on air just before college football started.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> OTA still has a lot of college football on during the regular season. Lots of high profile games.
> 
> But I think we are certainly seeing the trend as you describe it.


I always thought it odd that ABC and the other networks carry regular season CFB games OTA, but when it comes to the Bowl games (which theoretically would have higher ratings, at least Rose and Sugar), they are on cable. I think even the championship game was on ESPN last year (I don't remember, I didn't watch it).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Azlen said:


> When college football season starts, you'll probably see games on this network that were on FX for the last couple of years. I'm sure they timed their launch so they were on air just before college football started.


I'm sure. It's actually the right time to launch. CFB is starting, as is the NFL and MLB is hitting the home stretch, so they can show pennant race games.

The other thing I find kind of interesting is that all four major network have now launched sports networks, yet, the sports themselves ALL have their own networks, and the "junkies" of those sports probably go there first. At least for me, if I want to find out what is happening in baseball, my first stop is MLB Network, and same for the other sports. Even the CFB conferences I think all have their own networks (at least I know that the Big 10 and Pac 12 do).


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I always thought it odd that ABC and the other networks carry regular season CFB games OTA, but when it comes to the Bowl games (which theoretically would have higher ratings, at least Rose and Sugar), they are on cable. I think even the championship game was on ESPN last year (I don't remember, I didn't watch it).


ESPN offered more money. They use the games to justify the high per subscriber cost they charge. There's actually only a handful of bowl games that are OTA now. Sun Bowl, Cotton Bowl and maybe a couple of others. Curious to see if Fox moves the Cotton Bowl to Fox Sports 1 now though.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'll watch when it inevitably has something on that I want to watch. One thing I know, my cable bill is probably on the way up once this channel and espn go to war and start spending stupid amounts of money on broadcast rights.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Azlen said:


> ESPN offered more money. They use the games to justify the high per subscriber cost they charge. There's actually only a handful of bowl games that are OTA now. Sun Bowl, Cotton Bowl and maybe a couple of others. Curious to see if Fox moves the Cotton Bowl to Fox Sports 1 now though.


Well, ESPN = ABC, so there is no reason those games couldn't be on ABC.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I'll watch when it inevitably has something on that I want to watch. One thing I know, my cable bill is probably on the way up once this channel and espn go to war and start spending stupid amounts of money on broadcast rights.


And don't forget that NBC will probably want a piece of the pie too. I've yet to figure out what CBS is doing with their sports net. I don't think I've ever watched anything on it.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Our local cableco (Mediacom) just launched FS1 and an HD channel dedicated to the Iowa State Cyclones....unbelievable. They have a channel dedicated to the Hawkeyes which I can understand give the geographic breadth of their appeal. But Iowa State? Gimme a break....ridiculous....


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Well, ESPN = ABC, so there is no reason those games couldn't be on ABC.


You would think but obviously Disney wants them on ESPN rather than ABC for a reason. I can only assume that they make more money on ESPN because otherwise there isn't another reason to do it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Azlen said:


> You would think but obviously Disney wants them on ESPN rather than ABC for a reason. I can only assume that they make more money on ESPN because otherwise there isn't another reason to do it.


Obviously money and control. As I said, to me, that's the first step in sports moving almost exclusively to cable. And I think Fox is planning the same thing for baseball.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Azlen said:


> You would think but obviously Disney wants them on ESPN rather than ABC for a reason. I can only assume that they make more money on ESPN because otherwise there isn't another reason to do it.


and even when ABC does show sports, it's usually labeled as "ESPN on ABC"


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

If they put sports on ESPN, they can schedule not sports on ABC. If they put sports on ABC, they have nothing but sports available.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> If they put sports on ESPN, they can schedule not sports on ABC. If they put sports on ABC, they have nothing but sports available.


yep, exactly!!


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

There are obligations to show a certain amount of sport on the networks for free and some games are considered 'public interest'. So for this reason, all of the nets have cable versions to show more than they do on the main broadcast channels.

NBC, for example, showed a LOT of EPL over the weekend - a total of four or five games - and they were able to cherry-pick one for showing on the broadcast station (Manchester United). Even Fox would show all the F1 races on Speed, but some would be on the main channel through the season.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

NBC showed ALL of the EPL games on one channel or the other. (NBC, NBCSN, or the five special "Extra Time" channels they setup just for this.)


Certainly, for college football bowl games, there are quite a few lesser games that make a lot more sense on ESPN than broadcast.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Well, I think it's that, and a LOT more. This is them taking their shot at ESPN, at a time when ESPN could be vulnerable. Plus CBS and NBC both have their own Sports nets as well now. But I think Fox looks at the channel to take a run at ESPN and that's why the big push. They have baseball to put on there, and plenty of college sports, just like ESPN. They will make a run at the NBA eventually as well. Oh, and they have Regis


With DVRs and streaming and all the other options out there these days, sports is about the only place that advertisers can be reasonably certain that their ads will be seen, because people still watch sports live. And people will demand the ability to see their sports. ESPN has parlayed this into over $500 million per month in subscriber fees, and probably another couple hundred in advertising revenue. All the other networks see this and want in on some of that money. In order to do that, they've got to have a dedicated, national, sports network, then they've got to bid on and win the rights to air content that people will want to see, and then they can raise their subscriber fees when the demand is there.



Steveknj said:


> Just a random thought about the proliferation of Sports Networks. I wonder if this is the beginning of the end of OTA networks carrying major sporting events? Outside of the NFL, are the OTAs even making money on those deals? Most of the CFB Bowls are now on ESPN or other cable networks, including some real MAJOR ones, such as the Rose and Sugar. Most major sport playoff games with the exception of the NFL is on cable now too? So could it be that the big 4 networks are going to move everything over to their own Sports Nets where they don't have to deal with affiliates, and can get full advertising dollars?


There's a very small percentage of TV households in the US that don't have ESPN (less than 15%, I think). ESPN can make a lot more money by putting the premiere events on cable and then raising their subscriber fees. Every cable provider in the country will pay whatever the amount is, because they'd have a revolt of subscribers if they lost the rights to air ESPN for even a couple of days. So ESPN and the sports leagues have basically decided that they're willing to sacrifice that small percentage of people who don't have cable for the chance to make more money from the people that do have cable.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I still say this is all Tivo's fault.  Sports programming probably has the highest percentage of people that watch it live so advertisers are willing to pay more to show their commercials during sports broadcasts. The networks then offer a lot more money to the professional leagues and college conferences to get their programming and then they turn around and charge the providers a lot more money. This makes sports programming very profitable. All of this because fewer people fast forward through commercials on ESPN.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Is this different/replacing Fox Sports Net?

Also, will either of these have _new_ poker shows? Other than a few very rare other examples (some of ESPN's documentaries actually, the hot dog contest, and once in a RARE while, one or two of the Little League World Series games before the finale on ABC), poker shows are about all I need sports networks for.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mattack said:


> Is this different/replacing Fox Sports Net?
> 
> Also, will either of these have _new_ poker shows? Other than a few very rare other examples (some of ESPN's documentaries actually, the hot dog contest, and once in a RARE while, one or two of the Little League World Series games before the finale on ABC), poker shows are about all I need sports networks for.


No, it's not replacing FSN. Those are regional, and therefore offer different programming all over the country. FS1 is a new national sports network trying to rival ESPN. Ultimately, it's all about the content, and for the time being, ESPN owns the rights to most of the most interesting sports. But it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years. Will these upstart sports nets thrive? Will they eat into ESPN's market share? Is there enough content to go around?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Are they really "upstarts"? I mean, they are cable arms of established networks. Though some more than others. NBC is the most established. But Fox made a very big name for itself when it launched it's sports department by securing rights to the NFL. They have done really well with that. 

That said, you make a good point about their being enough content. Some content that was up and coming and strong has waned in recent years (NASCAR). Others have struggled for a while (NHL). But maybe there is some up and coming stuff that can breakthrough. NBC is pushing hard on English Premier League, with a lot of that on cable. And then there is MMA. Still think that sport could be what boxing was long long ago.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Are they really "upstarts"? I mean, they are cable arms of established networks. Though some more than others. NBC is the most established. But Fox made a very big name for itself when it launched it's sports department by securing rights to the NFL. They have done really well with that.


Well, they've definitely got the pedigrees and the backing, but I consider them upstarts because they're being launched on deep cable and demanding increased subscriber fees at a time when people are pushing back on the rising costs of cable/satellite and so, unlike ESPN, many of these new sports nets will be in a subscription-only tier and that's a killer for getting any kind of large audience.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> Is this different/replacing Fox Sports Net?
> 
> Also, will either of these have _new_ poker shows? Other than a few very rare other examples (some of ESPN's documentaries actually, the hot dog contest, and once in a RARE while, one or two of the Little League World Series games before the finale on ABC), poker shows are about all I need sports networks for.


Is poker a sport?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, it's not replacing FSN. Those are regional, and therefore offer different programming all over the country. FS1 is a new national sports network trying to rival ESPN. Ultimately, it's all about the content, and for the time being, ESPN owns the rights to most of the most interesting sports. But it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years. Will these upstart sports nets thrive? Will they eat into ESPN's market share? Is there enough content to go around?


There's an awful lot of college football and basketball out there. FSN already has the rights to some of those conferences and broadcasted those games over the regional networks as national broadcasts. I'm sure those games will be ported over the national network. IRC ESPN really cut it's teeth on broadcasting college sports (and the USFL) until they brought in MLB (I think that was first, before the NFL games).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Are they really "upstarts"? I mean, they are cable arms of established networks. Though some more than others. NBC is the most established. But Fox made a very big name for itself when it launched it's sports department by securing rights to the NFL. They have done really well with that.
> 
> That said, you make a good point about their being enough content. Some content that was up and coming and strong has waned in recent years (NASCAR). Others have struggled for a while (NHL). But maybe there is some up and coming stuff that can breakthrough. NBC is pushing hard on English Premier League, with a lot of that on cable. And then there is MMA. Still think that sport could be what boxing was long long ago.


The thing with MMA, it's still more cultish than boxing was 30 years ago. The big heavyweight match was news for weeks and had a national following. Even casual sports fans knew who Ali or Joe Louis or even Joe Frazier was. And during it's peak TV years from the late 60s until the end of the Tyson era, the buzz from a major prize fight was probably second only to Super Bowl Sunday in interest. Maybe even more so. Even the lower weight classes got lots of buzz. Think of Sugar Ray Leonard or Roberto Duran. Can MMA ever draw that kind of attention? I doubt it. Times are a LOT different today. There's just too much else going on.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

Any competition for ESPN is a good thing. Sure it will take awhile to become a viable alternative (and it may never happen) but I can't stand ESPN. I'll watch games on it because I have no choice but I won't watch anything else.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> The thing with MMA, it's still more cultish than boxing was 30 years ago. The big heavyweight match was news for weeks and had a national following. Even casual sports fans knew who Ali or Joe Louis or even Joe Frazier was. And during it's peak TV years from the late 60s until the end of the Tyson era, the buzz from a major prize fight was probably second only to Super Bowl Sunday in interest. Maybe even more so. Even the lower weight classes got lots of buzz. Think of Sugar Ray Leonard or Roberto Duran. Can MMA ever draw that kind of attention? I doubt it. Times are a LOT different today. There's just too much else going on.


Agreed. Hagler/Leonard/Hearns/Duran... those were BIG events anytime one of those guys fought. MMA isn't anything to close to what boxing was. Neither is todays boxing.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

VegasVic said:


> Agreed. Hagler/Leonard/Hearns/Duran... those were BIG events anytime one of those guys fought. MMA isn't anything to close to what boxing was. Neither is todays boxing.


Boxing screwed up by getting greedy. Too many "champions" in order to be able to market "championship" fights. And abandoning free (and then basic cable) TV for any fights with brand name fighters killed off interest from the average fan. When I was a kid, ABC or NBC had fights with the big name fighters of the day. Fights with Ali or Leonard or Holmes against lesser known opponents were frequently on regular TV. Even the big closed circuit fights were shown on regular TV a week later. Now, those fights that were on regular TV are on HBO or Showtime, which are not only cable channels but premium ones. Any decent name brand fight is PPV. But going for the money, they killed the popularity of the sport. Now it's a fringe sport at best. I enjoy watching boxing still, but I probably couldn't name more than a couple of champions.

If the sport was smart, they'd revive the practice of showing lots of championship fights on OTA or basic cable. With the proliferation of sports networks, now is the time. To me, and old time boxing fan, MMA more resembles professional wrestling than boxing, in both the fights and it's presentation. I'm sure it's legit, but it just gives me the wrong vibe.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I always thought it odd that ABC and the other networks carry regular season CFB games OTA, but when it comes to the Bowl games (which theoretically would have higher ratings, at least Rose and Sugar), they are on cable. I think even the championship game was on ESPN last year (I don't remember, I didn't watch it).


ABC carries games OTA on Saturday nights, when they don't have anything better to show. It's not about to give up viewers on a Monday night for a football game (even if it is for the national championship); this is one of the reasons Monday Night Football is no longer on ABC.



TonyTheTiger said:


> I think it's an attempt to win back the audience it's lost through losing F1 and the EPL to NBC.
> 
> Need to offer way more than UFC and Nascar for me, though.


From what I have heard, FS1 may air one of the ALCS or NLCS (Fox alternates between the two from year to year) starting next year; Fox feels that too much postseason baseball messes up its schedule.

Another reason FS1 exists is to try to become an ESPN-breaker. Somebody should have asked Turner what happened when he tried it with CNNSI. (Now, there aren't even any dedicated sports shows on CNN. Anyone else remember _Calling All Sports_?)



> I understand Fox Soccer is due to disappear to - it's becoming FXX I think.


Correct - the switchover is in mid-September. One of the things it will be showing is the Creative Arts Emmy Awards, which may be slightly more important than usual if the rumors about moving the Reality Show Host category to that ceremony are true.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> ABC carries games OTA on Saturday nights, when they don't have anything better to show. It's not about to give up viewers on a Monday night for a football game (even if it is for the national championship); this is one of the reasons Monday Night Football is no longer on ABC.


Didn't MNF on ABC regularly beat whatever entertainment show was on the other networks and got higher ratings than what ABC is showing now? But, as pointed out, Having the games on ESPN gives ABC the opportunity to have their cake and eat it too. ESPN ratings are huge for MNF AND they can still make money showing entertainment shows. Combined it has to be better than showing the game on ABC and showing whatever filler ESPN used to show. Plus, I thought when NBC got SNF, that ESPN just bid for the cable package that used to be on TNT / ESPN Sunday nights.



> From what I have heard, FS1 may air one of the ALCS or NLCS (Fox alternates between the two from year to year) starting next year; Fox feels that too much postseason baseball messes up its schedule.


Yes 2015, effectively pushing the whole post season, with the exception of the WS to cable. I bet within 5 years, all but games 4-7 of the WS will be on cable as well (much like what the NHL does on NBC).



> Another reason FS1 exists is to try to become an ESPN-breaker. Somebody should have asked Turner what happened when he tried it with CNNSI. (Now, there aren't even any dedicated sports shows on CNN. Anyone else remember _Calling All Sports_?)


Wasn't CNNSI strictly a sports news outlet? I don't remember them having live events. It's obvious that Fox is going after ESPN. They are REALLY blitzing the airwaves pushing the network. A LOT more than NBCSN was pushed by NBC. I still have no clue what CBS is doing with THEIR sports network. I had no idea it even existed until I was scrolling around the guide one day.



> Correct - the switchover is in mid-September. One of the things it will be showing is the Creative Arts Emmy Awards, which may be slightly more important than usual if the rumors about moving the Reality Show Host category to that ceremony are true.


Great, just what we need, another network full of reality shows and butchered movies.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

It doesn't negate the point that CNN/SI was a 99.8% all-news channel, but I remember they did have a contract to show WUSA soccer right before they shut down.

Re FS1 and yesterday's premieres: I thought Fox Soccer Daily was great, Fox Football Daily was forgettable, and Crowd Goes Wild was awful.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> If the sport was smart, they'd revive the practice of showing lots of championship fights on OTA or basic cable. With the proliferation of sports networks, now is the time. To me, and old time boxing fan, MMA more resembles professional wrestling than boxing, in both the fights and it's presentation. I'm sure it's legit, but it just gives me the wrong vibe.


No one will ever care about boxing again. There are still local fights on MASN and CSN. It's just not exciting watching a bunch of rigged fights where the guys are lying on each other and we get to see a crappy decision. For every 1 good HW fight there were 40 that sucked with two fat guys who were gassed by round 2.

I don't really think you've watched MMA. Does college wrestling resemble WWF to you? I want to see the best fighters in the world fight and they're in MMA.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

fmowry said:


> No one will ever care about boxing again. There are still local fights on MASN and CSN. It's just not exciting watching a bunch of rigged fights where the guys are lying on each other and we get to see a crappy decision. For every 1 good HW fight there were 40 that sucked with two fat guys who were gassed by round 2.
> 
> I don't really think you've watched MMA. Does college wrestling resemble WWF to you? I want to see the best fighters in the world fight and they're in MMA.


I've watched MMA and I didn't like it. I prefer old school boxing. But that's me. To each his own.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Azlen said:


> ESPN offered more money. They use the games to justify the high per subscriber cost they charge. There's actually only a handful of bowl games that are OTA now. Sun Bowl, Cotton Bowl and maybe a couple of others. Curious to see if Fox moves the Cotton Bowl to Fox Sports 1 now though.


LOL, how can ESPN offer more money than ABC?  The reason why the major bowl games are now on cable is someone has to pay for them!


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

rifleman69 said:


> LOL, how can ESPN offer more money than ABC?  The reason why the major bowl games are now on cable is someone has to pay for them!


ABC didn't bid because they and ESPN are both owned by Disney. ESPN won the bid because they offered the most money for the bowl games. Previously they were on Fox but when the contract came up for bid, ESPN offered the most money, so they moved from OTA to cable. The BCS could have chosen not to take the most money to keep them on OTA but they didn't.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Azlen said:


> ABC didn't bid because they and ESPN are both owned by Disney. ESPN won the bid because they offered the most money for the bowl games. Previously they were on Fox but when the contract came up for bid, ESPN offered the most money, so they moved from OTA to cable. The BCS could have chosen not to take the most money to keep them on OTA but they didn't.


Do they show the bowl games locally OTA, like they do for the NFL?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Do they show the bowl games locally OTA, like they do for the NFL?


Nope.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

rifleman69 said:


> LOL, how can ESPN offer more money than ABC?  The reason why the major bowl games are now on cable is someone has to pay for them!


ESPN can offer more money because it makes more money. ESPN makes more money from subscriber fees than any other network. Just the ESPN channel (not including ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, etc.) collects over $5 per month from every cable/satellite household in the country. That's over $500 million per month just from subscribers, and then they get to sell advertising on top of that. ESPN is a giant cash cow.










This chart is from a year ago. I believe ESPN has now canceled ESPN 3D. So if you add ESPN and ESPN2, they're making $5.73/month/subscriber. Add in ESPNews, Classic, U, etc. and they're probably over $6/month/subscriber. That dwarfs anyone else in the business.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Is poker a sport?


At least as far as this conversation is concerned, yes. It already airs on 'sports' networks. (Yes, I know ESPN used to have NON-sports shows -- Entertainment Sports Programming Network or something like that.)


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

One of my co-workers is ecstatic about FS1's extensive MMA coverage. She's a huge MMA fan.


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

One of the reasons ABC dropped MNF was that the schedule was set at the beginning of the season, and so if a late in the season game turned into a dog (because of injuries to key players, or a team having a bad season), they lost ratings that week. That's why the Sunday night package is now the "big deal" NFL package because they can change the late season games to cover the late season playoff push. When ESPN (and TNT) had the Sunday night package that wasn't the case.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

tiassa said:


> One of the reasons ABC dropped MNF was that the schedule was set at the beginning of the season, and so if a late in the season game turned into a dog (because of injuries to key players, or a team having a bad season), they lost ratings that week. That's why the Sunday night package is now the "big deal" NFL package because they can change the late season games to cover the late season playoff push. When ESPN (and TNT) had the Sunday night package that wasn't the case.


Sure.. But why couldn't ABC have negotiated the Flex Game thing for Monday Night Football on ABC??


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

jsmeeker said:


> Sure.. But why couldn't ABC have negotiated the Flex Game thing for Monday Night Football on ABC??


Much easier to move a game from Sunday afternoon to Sunday night vs. Monday night


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I've watched bits of their Sports Center show. Way too much crap on the screen.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I've watched bits of their Sports Center show. Way too much crap on the screen.


That's my complaint with ESPN too. I stopped watching those types of shows a long time ago. The internet gives me all that info in real time if I want it.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

cherry ghost said:


> Much easier to move a game from Sunday afternoon to Sunday night vs. Monday night


That makes sense.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> That makes sense.


Although I suppose that ABC/ESPN could have gone after the SNF package.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Although I suppose that ABC/ESPN could have gone after the SNF package.


They probably should have. NBC won the fall season last year primarily because of Sunday Night Football and The Voice.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> They probably should have. NBC won the fall season last year primarily because of Sunday Night Football and The Voice.


But ESPN routinely has the highest-rated show on cable each week during the season, and ABC/ESPN makes more money from ESPN than they do from ABC, so it makes sense that they'd want to put as much premium content on ESPN as possible, because then they can justify higher subscriber fees and people won't flinch when their bills go up due to ESPN.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Although I suppose that ABC/ESPN could have gone after the SNF package.


Sure.. But to me, Monday Night Football was a special deal. It was neat that there was a big game on Monday night. It was an event. Now, it's just a single really late game on the same day as all the other games. Though the flex option does make it so they can avoid clunker games and get you a meaningful matchup.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Sure.. But to me, Monday Night Football was a special deal. It was neat that there was a big game on Monday night. It was an event. Now, it's just a single really late game on the same day as all the other games. Though the flex option does make it so they can avoid clunker games and get you a meaningful matchup.


All true, but still, don't the ratings of SNF dwarf that of MNF on ESPN? I get the point where ESPN makes more money than ABC, so there's that.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> ESPN can offer more money because it makes more money. ESPN makes more money from subscriber fees than any other network. Just the ESPN channel (not including ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, etc.) collects over $5 per month from every cable/satellite household in the country. That's over $500 million per month just from subscribers, and then they get to sell advertising on top of that. ESPN is a giant cash cow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This really should have been better regulated by the FCC. Pass-through fees were a great idea in the early eighties when these new channels didn't broadcast from traditional towers, had no public image and needed support as they geared up.

But that's all changed now. Their pass-through fees should be reduce proportionately as their advertising revenue rises.

Instead, the complete opposite seems to be happening. If I could reduce my cable bill by $5.50 per month and have my cable company eliminate ESPN on principle, I would.

At the very least, they should be restricted to far fewer commercials per hour.
People in the U.S. seem amazed at the BBC tax Britons pay...I don't see much difference. It's not like you can tell your company you don't want ESPN.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

tvmaster2 said:


> Instead, the complete opposite seems to be happening. If I could reduce my cable bill by $5.50 per month and have my cable company eliminate ESPN on principle, I would.
> <snip>
> It's not like you can tell your company you don't want ESPN.


While I understand the cable model and the idea of bundling, and for the most part actually accept it, sports is the one area I'd like to see more flexibility. I have the everything package from Comcast, as I like to watch a lot of TV. But there is no way to get that without them including all the sports channels. And I don't watch sports. At all. So I probably pay an extra $100-$200/year for unwanted and unwatched channels.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> While I understand the cable model and the idea of bundling, and for the most part actually accept it, sports is the one area I'd like to see more flexibility. I have the everything package from Comcast, as I like to watch a lot of TV. But there is no way to get that without them including all the sports channels. And I don't watch sports. At all. So I probably pay an extra $100-$200/year for unwanted and unwatched channels.


Everyone who doesn't watch sports says the same thing  I don't watch any of the women's oriented channels (nor does my wife for that matter), so can we ala carte Lifetime and Oprah, etc? But I get that the sports programming is the most expensive basic cable channels. But I think they probably bring in the most subscribers too. Years ago, when I had Cablevision (and TKR before that), they used to bundle certain sports channels in a higher tier. For some reason they went away from that (I think mostly because the sports channels lobbied to get on basic cable or pull their channel from the lineups...and eventually Cablevision BOUGHT what was at the time the three sports network in the NY Metro).


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Everyone who doesn't watch sports says the same thing  I don't watch any of the women's oriented channels (nor does my wife for that matter), so can we ala carte Lifetime and Oprah, etc? * But I get that the sports programming is the most expensive basic cable channels. *


And that's the ONLY reason I mention sports. They consume a significant percentage of my cable dollar, so I'd like to see them unbundled. Just as premium channels are.

If sports (AKA ESPN) were .70/month like AMC or APL, I wouldn't even care.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

yeah, but I think you guys have the argument mixed up - I don't have any problem with bundling: it's what keeps niche channels in business and offers different views and opinions for what would otherwise be small enough viewership numbers that couldn't possibly compete with the big boys for ad revenue - hence operating dollars.

My beef is that the pass-through fees that are used to support those lesser-watched channels is being abused in the case of ESPN getting a disproportionate amount of that money.

I like sports, and ESPN does a good job supplying a HIGLY VIEWED selection of programs.
However, as they are now easily on par with broadcast networks for eyeballs per 1000, and fill each hour with as much or more advertising at rates the broadcast channels charge, I don't feel like I should be subsidizing them anymore.

They, based on their ad revenue, should stand on their own two feet as it were, as do CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX.
Bundling is fine - getting massive amounts of pass-through subscriber $$$ is not when you have MASSIVE ad revenue


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think that's a very outdated way to look at it. Cable stations don't charge for subscribers because they can't charge as much to advertisers. Cable stations charge because their content has to be carried over infrastructure rather than over the airwaves. The broadcast channels have the right to send content OTA that the cable networks don't. Thus, the broadcast nets traditionally get more viewers. But subscriber fees are not meant to be a replacement for ad revenue. They're two completely separate things. That ESPN has figured out how to make subscriber fees be FAR more lucrative than ad revenue doesn't mean they should charge less for ads, nor does it mean that if they have high viewership and can charge a lot for ads, that they then shouldn't be able to charge subscriber fees.

In fact, things are going the opposite way. All of the broadcast networks now charge retransmission fees to the cable providers that carry them. So NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX are doing the exact same thing ESPN is doing, and getting subscriber fees and ad revenue.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think that's a very outdated way to look at it. Cable stations don't charge for subscribers because they can't charge as much to advertisers. Cable stations charge because their content has to be carried over infrastructure rather than over the airwaves. The broadcast channels have the right to send content OTA that the cable networks don't. Thus, the broadcast nets traditionally get more viewers. But subscriber fees are not meant to be a replacement for ad revenue. They're two completely separate things. That ESPN has figured out how to make subscriber fees be FAR more lucrative than ad revenue doesn't mean they should charge less for ads, nor does it mean that if they have high viewership and can charge a lot for ads, that they then shouldn't be able to charge subscriber fees.
> 
> *In fact, things are going the opposite way. All of the broadcast networks now charge retransmission fees to the cable providers that carry them. So NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX are doing the exact same thing ESPN is doing, and getting subscriber fees and ad revenue.*


But haven't we pointed out that the networks in and of themselves don't charge re-transmission fees, but the affiliates do? Do the networks share in those fees that the affiliates charge? (And yes, I'm aware that in the largest markets most of the affiliates are owned by the networks themselves. So in this type of model, the networks make their money from advertising but the affiliates from transmission fees (and advertising).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> But haven't we pointed out that the networks in and of themselves don't charge re-transmission fees, but the affiliates do? Do the networks share in those fees that the affiliates charge? (And yes, I'm aware that in the largest markets most of the affiliates are owned by the networks themselves. So in this type of model, the networks make their money from advertising but the affiliates from transmission fees (and advertising).


The network benefits from retransmission fees for any affiliate that is O&O. And I think they do charge the non-O&O affiliates more for the right to be an affiliate now that those affiliate have an additional stream of income available to them through retransmission fees.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

ESPN is in something like 97 million homes. At $5 per home, that's $475 million a month in rights fees. 

If they were a la carte at $10 a month, they'd need 47.5 million people to pay for it. I'm not sure they can get it. Not as consistently, if it's easy enough to unsubscribe when your favorite sport goes out of season.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aindik said:


> ESPN is in something like 97 million homes. At $5 per home, that's $475 million a month in rights fees.
> 
> If they were a la carte at $10 a month, they'd need 47.5 million people to pay for it. I'm not sure they can get it. Not as consistently, if it's easy enough to unsubscribe when your favorite sport goes out of season.


Add in another $0.70 or so for ESPN2, plus the cost of ESPNU, ESPN Classic, the ability to use the Watch ESPN app, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they make over $650 million a month from subscriber fees. That means they'd have to get 65 million subscribers at $10/month, or more realistically, 32.5 million subscribers at $20/month.

But let's not forget that there are several other sports networks as well. FS1, the FSN regional networks, CSTV, NBCSN, PACN, BTN, soon the SEC Network, Golf, Tennis, NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. If cable goes ala carte, and sports fans have to pay $20/month just to get ESPN, they're not going to be willing to pay much additional to get all the other sports content that they're currently getting. It will put many of these networks out of business.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

If ESPN was $20 a month I wouldn't pay for it. Let alone people who actually don't follow sports. If they can't get me, they'll have a hard time getting 32 million people. I suspect they know that. 

Also, with a maximum potential audience of 32 million households, they can't charge as much for advertising. I'm sure there are people watching some events on ESPN who wouldn't pay $20 a month for the right to continue doing so. 

If I had to pay $20 a month to access the baseball postseason, I probably would. But that's only one month a year. And it would have to be for all the postseason games. Not just the measily two games ESPN will have next year, but the ones on TBS and FS1 too.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm not saying they'd be able to get 32 million subscribers at $20/month. I'm simply saying that it's more likely they could get 32 million at $20/month than that they could get 65 million at $10/month.

But the reality is, if ala carte is ever allowed, all of these companies will take a financial hit. Many won't be able to survive at all, and the ones that do will have to scale back.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Add in another $0.70 or so for ESPN2, plus the cost of ESPNU, ESPN Classic, the ability to use the Watch ESPN app, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they make over $650 million a month from subscriber fees. That means they'd have to get 65 million subscribers at $10/month, or more realistically, 32.5 million subscribers at $20/month.
> 
> But let's not forget that there are several other sports networks as well. FS1, the FSN regional networks, CSTV, NBCSN, PACN, BTN, soon the SEC Network, Golf, Tennis, NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. If cable goes ala carte, and sports fans have to pay $20/month just to get ESPN, they're not going to be willing to pay much additional to get all the other sports content that they're currently getting. It will put many of these networks out of business.


out of curiosity, you don't work for ESPN or a partner company do you? The argument that by denying the King, the paupers will go unfed sounds like something ESPN's lobbyists would say to the FCC.
Seriously, I too would dump ESPN (no F1, Indycar, Hockey, Premiership) and instead spend the $20 subscribing to ALL the competitors.
Asides from $650m in sub fees, I wonder what they make in ad revenue, per hour, compared to CBS for example?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

ESPN has a ton of college football. No way would I not want it.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

as does CBS, NBC, Fox (and they're free), and a few other cable nets (Big 10, etc).
lots of college ball elsewhere...at least enough for me


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

tvmaster2 said:


> out of curiosity, you don't work for ESPN or a partner company do you? The argument that by denying the King, the paupers will go unfed sounds like something ESPN's lobbyists would say to the FCC. Seriously, I too would dump ESPN (no F1, Indycar, Hockey, Premiership) and instead spend the $20 subscribing to ALL the competitors. Asides from $650m in sub fees, I wonder what they make in ad revenue, per hour, compared to CBS for example?


No, I don't work for ESPN or anyone else like that. And my argument isn't just about sports networks. The vast majority of cable networks would not get enough subscribers to stay in business if people got to pick and choose which ones they wanted to pay for.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, I don't work for ESPN or anyone else like that. And my argument isn't just about sports networks. The vast majority of cable networks would not get enough subscribers to stay in business if people got to pick and choose which ones they wanted to pay for.


I don't disagree with that...the newspaper analogy.
Intelligent bundling is the way to go - packaging by scale, ie grouping certain channels into pick-any-three bundles. That way, the cable company ensures certain channels are supported based on niche. So you couldn't have only a premium group without a lower-tier group.
look up Shaw Direct's (Canadian satellite company) packages. Flexibility with constraints.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

One thing's for sure: thank goodness Jay & Dan are back from their two-week vacation. It was kinda painful tuning into 'Fox Sports Live' in their absence.






They alone make ESPN Sportscenter seem kinda 'old'....


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aindik said:


> If ESPN was $20 a month I wouldn't pay for it. Let alone people who actually don't follow sports. If they can't get me, they'll have a hard time getting 32 million people. I suspect they know that.
> 
> Also, with a maximum potential audience of 32 million households, they can't charge as much for advertising. I'm sure there are people watching some events on ESPN who wouldn't pay $20 a month for the right to continue doing so.
> 
> If I had to pay $20 a month to access the baseball postseason, I probably would. But that's only one month a year. And it would have to be for all the postseason games. Not just the measily two games ESPN will have next year, but the ones on TBS and FS1 too.


I'm a HUGE sports fan, and I wouldn't pay $20 a month JUST for the ESPN family of channels. I probably watch it less than 10x a year (a few Yankees games and a couple of Giants MNF games) otherwise, I'm watching RSN. Now, if they gave me a streaming option for $10 (with full access to MNF and their baseball slate) I might do that. Or if they packaged it all in with my RSN, and the other sports channels in a Sports tier, I'd buy that.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not saying they'd be able to get 32 million subscribers at $20/month. I'm simply saying that it's more likely they could get 32 million at $20/month than that they could get 65 million at $10/month.
> 
> But the reality is, if ala carte is ever allowed, all of these companies will take a financial hit. Many won't be able to survive at all, and the ones that do will have to scale back.


Which is why, as great as it sounds, I'm against a la carte. I actually think it's BAD for the consumer. All those fringe channels that you might enjoy would be gone. Only things that will stay is the most popular channels. Now, if they tiered rather than a la carte, that might work better. Sports channels tiered, History/Documentary channels tiered, stuff like that. Still would probably cause some issues for content providers, but they'd have a better shot at surviving than straight a la carte.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

tvmaster2 said:


> I don't disagree with that...the newspaper analogy.
> Intelligent bundling is the way to go - packaging by scale, ie grouping certain channels into pick-any-three bundles. That way, the cable company ensures certain channels are supported based on niche. So you couldn't have only a premium group without a lower-tier group.
> look up Shaw Direct's (Canadian satellite company) packages. Flexibility with constraints.


This used to be more common with cable companies, but they went away from it for some reason. When I first got Cablevision, they had a sports tier that was extra (but of course they wound up BUYING much of the RSNs in the region, so obviously they wanted as many eyeballs watching.

I think cable companies reasoned they can get higher fees from MORE people by FORCING these tiers on them. The vast majority are just going to pay.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

tvmaster2 said:


> One thing's for sure: thank goodness Jay & Dan are back from their two-week vacation. It was kinda painful tuning into 'Fox Sports Live' in their absence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who needs Sportscenter or ANY TV sports recap show. That's what the internet is for


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The only way a la carte is going to happen is if Congress mandates it. And if Congress mandates it, it's unlikely they'll allow bundling, as that would kind of defeat the purpose of a la carte.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> The only way a la carte is going to happen is if Congress mandates it. And if Congress mandates it, it's unlikely they'll allow bundling, as that would kind of defeat the purpose of a la carte.


Did the Canadian Parliament just mandate it up there?

But why couldn't you do both. Congress can say they have to OFFER a la carte. It doesn't mean that's the only way they can sell it. Offer all the channels a la carte, PLUS bundle them. Give the consumer the choice? I BET most chose the bundles, because they will be cheaper.

Think of it as a classic style Chinese menu. You can order each dish separately if you want, but it will cost you $25 for three dishes, or you can order them as part of the dinner for $20 and get an egg roll too.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Did the Canadian Parliament just mandate it up there?
> 
> But why couldn't you do both. Congress can say they have to OFFER a la carte. It doesn't mean that's the only way they can sell it. Offer all the channels a la carte, PLUS bundle them. Give the consumer the choice? I BET most chose the bundles, because they will be cheaper.
> 
> Think of it as a classic style Chinese menu. You can order each dish separately if you want, but it will cost you $25 for three dishes, or you can order them as part of the dinner for $20 and get an egg roll too.


I guess that's probably true. As long as true a la carte is offered, there's no reason they couldn't also offer bundles. And I would bet that lots of cable nets will be willing to reduce their prices to the carrier if the carrier will include them in their bundles, thus getting them more subscribers. So then we'd probably be back to where we are now, with a basic cable package including most of the minor niche channels and a few of the most popular ones.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I guess that's probably true. As long as true a la carte is offered, there's no reason they couldn't also offer bundles. And I would bet that lots of cable nets will be willing to reduce their prices to the carrier if the carrier will include them in their bundles, thus getting them more subscribers. So then we'd probably be back to where we are now, with a basic cable package including most of the minor niche channels and a few of the most popular ones.


Which would prove, once and for all, that for the vast majority of subscribers, the current system works pretty well.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I've said this before, maybe not in this thread. I'm ok with bundling, but sports needs to be its own bundle. Mandating ESPN and its huge fees is unfair to those of us who have no interest in sports.

I watch no sports, except the occasional game on the OTA networks. I can't remember the last time I tuned to ESPN or Comcast SportsNet or yada yada. Yet I know there are $20 or so of my monthly bill just for those channels.

And I know there are people who say "you want sports, someone else wants to unbundle this or that", but sports are the only channels that demand (and get) huge fees. The only other ones that compare are the premium channels, and they are (rightly so) available ala carte.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

astrohip said:


> I've said this before, maybe not in this thread. I'm ok with bundling, but sports needs to be its own bundle. Mandating ESPN and its huge fees is unfair to those of us who have no interest in sports.
> 
> I watch no sports, except the occasional game on the OTA networks. I can't remember the last time I tuned to ESPN or Comcast SportsNet or yada yada. Yet I know there are $20 or so of my monthly bill just for those channels.
> 
> And I know there are people who say "you want sports, someone else wants to unbundle this or that", but sports are the only channels that demand (and get) huge fees. The only other ones that compare are the premium channels, and they are (rightly so) available ala carte.


What about TNT and TBS?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aindik said:


> What about TNT and TBS?


Look at the chart in post 51. You could get the next 10 most expensive non-sports channels for not much more than what ESPN charges for ESPN and ESPN2.


```
1.21	TNT
0.97	Disney
0.82	FOX News
0.62	USA
0.59	TBS
0.57	CNN/HLN
0.52	Nick
0.46	FX
0.39	MTV
[u]0.37	Discovery[/u]
[b]6.52	Total[/b]
```


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I was just pointing out that you are paying for sports when you pay for TNT and TBS.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

this thread has become a metaphor: wasn't Fox Sports 1 the topic...is anyone watching? lol


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

tvmaster2 said:


> this thread has become a metaphor: wasn't Fox Sports 1 the topic...is anyone watching? lol


Welcome to the forum. We tangent a lot here 

I don't think I watched more than a few minutes of FS1 since it's been on the air. But I'm sure I will next year when they start carrying a bunch of baseball games.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

I've been watching "Fox Soccer Daily" pretty regularly. For the most part, I think it's better than "ESPN FC", but that might just be because the host is really cute.

Everything non-soccer FS1 does is either (a)of no interest to me, like UFC; or (b)is something ESPN does way better. I'm not nearly as fond of the jokers hosting Fox Sports Live as most sports TV critics are.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

I would definitely pay $20 a month for the ESPN networks but I'm glad I don't have to and that I can pay about $60 a month for every channel including premiums. I think it's a bargain.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

NYHeel said:


> I would definitely pay $20 a month for the ESPN networks but I'm glad I don't have to and that I can pay about $60 a month for every channel including premiums. I think it's a bargain.


That is a bargain. Most of us pay upwards if $100 if we have "every channel including premiums."


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

lambertman said:


> ..... I'm not nearly as fond of the jokers hosting Fox Sports Live as most sports TV critics are.


I love Jay & Dan, but I knew of them before FS1L, and they've definitely been reeled in a fair amount from what they were like on TSN.
It's sports for goodness sake, not brain surgery. Be idiotic, fun, irreverent, oddball and wacko...the nuttier the better. Even their podcast as been dialed back.
Is it religion or copyright law that makes everything so bland in the U.S.?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

astrohip said:


> I've said this before, maybe not in this thread. I'm ok with bundling, but sports needs to be its own bundle. Mandating ESPN and its huge fees is unfair to those of us who have no interest in sports.


You can save $10 a month with DirecTV by eliminating some sports channels. They have the Choice ($64.99) and Entertainment ($54.99) packages. With Entertainment you get ESPN and ESPN2 but that's it for sports. You don't get Big 10 Network, other ESPN channels, Fox Sports 1/2, your local Fox Sports, MLB or NFL. All other channels are the same comparing Entertainment and Choice.


----------

