« Was that YOU watching the CW? Naughty girl! You must pledge to TheWB.com | Main | Why would GE ever sell NBC? Why would the Olympics ever pick ESPN? »

August 20, 2008

Comments

Mark Jeffries

Let me go out on a limb: Coming to NBC in September 2009--The American version of "Hotel Babylon." Leading into "Lipstick Jungle" on Wednesday nights.

Doogie

Aaron, here's more reasons why ESPN should not even come close to landing the 2014 and 2016 games.

1. The superb job NBC Sports (and their family of networks) coverage of the games. They've only gotten better with technology. Considering what they've been able to do, on NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, USA, Universal HD, and two dedicated channels for soccer and basketball, they've literally covered every event. (And a side note: Their web video streams and overall web site are first-rate.)

ESPN/Disney doesn't have near the capability that NBC Universal does. Oh, but what about ABC, ABC Family? Good point. Here's the other shoe that would drop if ESPN bought the Olympics rights....

2. Our cable bills would skyrocket, because ESPN would charge even more than now for carrying the channel on cable systems. Remember how ESPN decided to pony up $1.1 BILLION a year for Monday Night Football? It's not on ABC for a reason. ABC can't charge viewers to see it, but ESPN can. I'm sure Disney/ESPN will bid up whatever number NBC can come up with, but I hope they don't get it. ESPN has been way too irresponsible with how they treat their subscribers by the way they overpay for many of their sports entities.

NBC says they are going to eke out a smalll profit from broadcasting the Beijing Games. Considering what they've paid in rights' fees, coupled with the infrastructure and manpower needed to pull off such a herculean task, that's an incredible feat by NBC Universal. ESPN wouldn't have that same mindset....they wouldn't even care, because they don't need it. To make that profit, they'd just charge more for us to have the channel at home. And though I'm a sports nut, I'm getting weary of higher cable bills, which are spearheaded by ESPN's greed.

3. I don't want Chris Berman anywhere near Olympics highlights.

Fred Farrar

For all the whining about NBC delaying prime time coverage to the West Coast (and I live in Los Angeles ands find the practice annoying) it is hard to argue with the ratings.

And, according to NBC, the ratings in the Central and Pacific time zones have been higher than those who watch the early feed back east.

There are many things about NBC I believe are disasters, but the coverage of these games, with a 12 (or 15) hour time difference, has been magnificent.

ESPN's oh-so-snide references to the NBC live bug will hopefully not cause anyone to focus on its own ethical shortcomings.

How about that "SportsCenter" franchise, supposedly a journalistic endeavor, but which is instead is consistently used to analyze and hype games, leagues, and sports ESPN itself will (surprise!) be televising or broadcasting on radio or via your computer or phone.

I agreed with Mark. I'd be all for Disney/ESPN bidding for the Olympics the minute the company agrees to allow ESPN to be sold a la carte by satellite, cable and telco providers.

As it is now, about two thirds of the sub fees flowing to Disney for ESPN are from homes which never watch the channel. Why should they continue to be forced to pay for baseball, football, soccer, X-games, Little League baseball, high school football games and now the Olympics?

And if Disney does manage to outbid NBC (and reportedly Fox) for the games, how much will the ESPN monthly fees be raised?

The comments to this entry are closed.

TV Barn on Twitter:








Site design by A.B. with help from Julio Garcia | About KansasCity.com | Terms of Use/Privacy | Copyright | RSS | Contact