PDA

View Full Version : CBS Sports and NCAA's Worst Nightmare


JPhillips
03-11-2003, 11:21 PM
I'm actually fairly impressed with CBS's decision here, but it has to scare the hell out of them. They will lose millions of dollars switching the games to cable.

Sorry this is so long, but it requires a registration at NYTimes and I know some will not want to do that.

Tournament Viewers May Miss Out if There's War
By RICHARD SANDOMIR

[C] BS Sports' contingency plan for broadcasting the N.C.A.A. Division I men's basketball tournament if the country goes to war includes shifting parts of the event to cable channels that, like CBS, are also owned by Viacom.

If CBS is forced to drastically reorganize its broadcasts of the tournament for a day or more, it could mean that a powerhouse team like Arizona would pre-empt "A-Team" reruns on TNN, Kentucky would replace "The Wild Thornberrys" on Nickelodeon and Kansas would take temporary hold of the "Gilligan's Island" slot on TV Land.

In a war, urgent coverage from CBS News would take precedence over the tournament, which the Viacom-owned network is paying $6 billion to televise through 2013. There is no way to be certain if CBS would pre-empt the tournament for no more than one or two days, then follow up in ensuing days with interruptions for special reports.

"We're talking virtually every day about this," Leslie Moonves, the president of CBS, said yesterday. "It depends on how early it happens. Clearly, in the beginning, war coverage is when you'd expect wall-to-wall news coverage."

He said the decision to cut away from full-time war coverage "is all about national sensitivity."

Four days after the Persian Gulf war started in January 1991, the National Football League's conference title games were played; NBC cut away from the Bills-Raiders American Football Conference game for nearly 17 minutes, and CBS left the Giants-49ers National Football Conference game for an extended timeout.

For the past month, CBS has analyzed the options available to it inside its parent company, Viacom, which also owns the TNN, Nickelodeon and TV Land channels. Other Viacom networks, like MTV and VH1 have been ruled out, Sean McManus, the president of CBS Sports, said.

"We're also having talks with various non-Viacom cable companies, to see what their interest is," McManus added. "ESPN is an option." An ESPN spokesman could not confirm any talks or the network's interest.

If the tournament's games move to three or four cable outlets, coverage will be hobbled most critically on the first two days of the tournament, March 20-21, when 16 games are played each day throughout the day. During Round 2, on March 22-23, there are eight games a day.

On its own, CBS showcases the tournament by dividing the nation into multiple regions to serve what are called "areas of natural interest"; the network can single out which of several games being played at once will be seen in each of more than 200 TV markets. A similar type of regionalization is used by CBS for its N.F.L. games on Sundays.

But channels like TNN, Nickelodeon and TV Land cannot regionalize; they send out live national feeds to thousands of cable systems. So viewers in New York, for example, see the same thing subscribers in Tucson or in Raleigh, N.C., see.

"The biggest problem is that in the first two days, four games are going on simultaneously in four different regions," McManus said.

If a continuous stream of news from Iraq requires CBS News to stay on the air full time through one round or more of the tournament, the cable channels would stand as the networks for each of the tournament's Midwest, West, South and East regions.

With each network able to show only one game at a time (TNN might be able to carry two because it has East and West Coast feeds), fans of each region might feel aggrieved if their favorite teams were not shown.

"If you have a Duke-Syracuse game and a Maryland-Florida game at the same time, you can only have one feed in the East and we can't switch around," McManus said.

"It's an issue that would be magnified around the country. If people in Kansas can't see Kansas' first-round game, that's an issue for a lot of people."

The technical inability of cable channels to provide regional coverage would also foreclose their ability to switch from one region to another for a brief look at what is happening in other games, or to leave at the end of one region's game to see the remainder of another's.

The cable channels are also hurt by their national reach. There are 106.7 million television households, but TNN and Nickelodeon each reach 86 million, and TV Land is available to 78.3 million.

CBS's ability to regionalize and switch among regions enables it to navigate the three-week tournament on its own. Yet the decisions made by CBS in the frenetic first four days ? like which game to show in each region and when to shift from a lopsided game to a closer one in another region ? is an annual source of debate among viewers.

McManus said the need to provide war coverage would in some ways make CBS's task simpler, because it would require far fewer decisions to be made during the frenetic first and second rounds. "But it would cause more viewer dissatisfaction," he added.

CBS is concerned that moving games to cable channels might affect its advertising revenue.

"Our goals are twofold," McManus said. "One, protect the revenue streams and two, protect our fans. The advertising will be impacted if we deliver a smaller rating than we promised. Cable normally isn't as highly rated and it could be a ratings shortfall, which would have to be made up with make-good units."

Make-goods are free commercials offered in other programs.

The only way for fans to increase their satisfaction is to pay $49 for DirecTV's satellite package, which shows 37 games from outside a subscriber's home market.

sooner333
03-11-2003, 11:29 PM
I'm a bit confused, because sometimes I get the impression that I will only be able to see one game that is being broadcasted to the entire nation, and other times I get the impression that I will be able to see all the games that are going on if I switch between the networks. So if there are four games, I can switch between TV Land, Nick, and TNN to see the one I want to see, instead of being stuck with the one I usually get. Anyway, I hope that I can see the Big 12 teams. Not having Live-look-in's would suck too.

JeeberD
03-11-2003, 11:35 PM
Oh good lord, I just realized that the first few rounds are going to be during spring break, over which I am going to be spending with my girlfriend in Colorado. Now I've got to figure out how to watch hoops without her getting pissed. Argh, what have I done to myself???

vex
03-11-2003, 11:50 PM
All you need is the earphones and you're set;)

GoldenEagle
03-12-2003, 12:29 AM
Just ignore your girlfriend. I do that, and it works for me.

JeeberD
03-12-2003, 12:44 AM
The problem is that we're going to my parents house in Colorado. So it's not like we'll be at home and she can just do stuff with her friends. I have to take her out and show her around and stuff.

I have got to start doing a better job of planning vacations around sports...

albionmoonlight
03-12-2003, 08:34 AM
This may come off as insensitive, but I do not see a problem with CBS showing the games in full and presenting war news during breaks. Anyone who wants to see the news has three broadcast stations and 4.3 billion news themed cable stations to watch.

Now that news has, IMO, become simply another revenue stream for broadcasters, and not something that networks provide as a public service, why should CBS suddenly feel this moral imperative to show the news because it is important?

Anyone who wants to watch coverage of the war has other outlets in which to do it. The networks have lost all claim to being public servants, informing me for my own best interest. So what is the problem with showing the games?

Please note that I am not belittling the importance and graveness of the potential war; I am belittling the self-importance of the networks and their "news" coverage.

KWhit
03-12-2003, 08:41 AM
it could mean that a powerhouse team like Arizona would pre-empt "A-Team" reruns on TNN, Kentucky would replace "The Wild Thornberrys" on Nickelodeon and Kansas would take temporary hold of the "Gilligan's Island" slot on TV Land.


OH GOD NO!!!!

Ksyrup
03-12-2003, 09:00 AM
The article doesn't go into this, but the reason that MTV and VH1 are not possibilities any more, although they were discussed previously, is because of the sensitivity of airing beer commercials on networks that cater specifically to teens [insert joke about how this is any different than what is going on now]. I would think that airing beer commercials on Nickelodeon would be an issue as well.

AgPete
03-12-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by albionmoonlight
This may come off as insensitive, but I do not see a problem with CBS showing the games in full and presenting war news during breaks. Anyone who wants to see the news has three broadcast stations and 4.3 billion news themed cable stations to watch.

Now that news has, IMO, become simply another revenue stream for broadcasters, and not something that networks provide as a public service, why should CBS suddenly feel this moral imperative to show the news because it is important?

Anyone who wants to watch coverage of the war has other outlets in which to do it. The networks have lost all claim to being public servants, informing me for my own best interest. So what is the problem with showing the games?

Please note that I am not belittling the importance and graveness of the potential war; I am belittling the self-importance of the networks and their "news" coverage.

American lives ALWAYS take precedence over a dumb basketball game. Sorry, I know where you're coming from because we have ten thousand news channels to choose from nowadays but the day we give the final four more priority than war is the day I know our country has lost it.

BTW, is CBS keeping their jouralists in Iraq like the first war? If I were a reporter, I wouldn't stick around in Baghdad this time.

Ksyrup
03-12-2003, 09:17 AM
Look, if we gave OJ's Bronco chase 3/4 screen to the NBA Finals 1/4, I think we have to go with preemption in the case of war.

kcchief19
03-12-2003, 03:59 PM
They are going to go preemption so they won't lose face and lose credibility in news. If the other networks went 24-hour war news and CBS didn't they would be portrayed as not caring about the news and the gravity of the situation. Nevermind that we already have an ad nauseum number of 24-hour news channels as it is.

I'm confused about the problem of conflicts as well, since I gathered from part of the article that each network would be "region" -- say TNN is the East, Nick is the South, TV Land is the Midwest and another network is the West. So only ONE of those networks would be able to show a game at any one time? Why not air them all? There are only four games at most going on at a time. Air them all and let the chips fall where they may. I would be willing to bet that if CBS aired all the games nationally as opposed to the regional coverage we currently get, the ratings wouldn't fall of much at all. Sure, you have make-goods on the smaller networks, but that's cheaper than refunding NCAA advertisers. The only argument against airing all the games is that it is against the NCAA contract and the dish network deal. Once again, throw a little money at the problem and it goes away, much cheaper than forcing the entire nation to watch IUPUI vs Kentucky.

What I'm surprised is lost in this article and others is local advertising. Local CBS stations make a bundle on the tourney. If the games go to cable, the local stations lose the revenue, which is going to be costly to them. If the games end up on cable, then the local cable systems would appear to be in line to benefit from the local commercial placements. They could sell a bundle of those packages for far more than the standard cable spot. They could make a fortune off this.

Anrhydeddu
03-12-2003, 04:14 PM
CBS losing credibility in news?? With Dan Rather??? I think they had already lost that a looooong time ago.

Ksyrup
03-12-2003, 04:26 PM
What's the frequency Kenneth?

panerd
03-12-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by albionmoonlight
This may come off as insensitive, but I do not see a problem with CBS showing the games in full and presenting war news during breaks. Anyone who wants to see the news has three broadcast stations and 4.3 billion news themed cable stations to watch.

Now that news has, IMO, become simply another revenue stream for broadcasters, and not something that networks provide as a public service, why should CBS suddenly feel this moral imperative to show the news because it is important?

Anyone who wants to watch coverage of the war has other outlets in which to do it. The networks have lost all claim to being public servants, informing me for my own best interest. So what is the problem with showing the games?

Please note that I am not belittling the importance and graveness of the potential war; I am belittling the self-importance of the networks and their "news" coverage.

Have to agree 100%. CBS is scared about how they will look if NBC and ABC are covering war, it has nothing to do with my or your interest. Just like the NFL would have loved to play those games the week after Sept 11th, but didn't want to look like the "bad guy" league with baseball pushing back it's season.

AgPete
03-12-2003, 07:17 PM
I think it's also important to remember that there are people that live in rural parts of our country that may only receive CBS and/or another major networks. Not everyone has cable and not everyone has all four major networks.

panerd
03-12-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by AgPete
I think it's also important to remember that there are people that live in rural parts of our country that may only receive CBS and/or another major networks. Not everyone has cable and not everyone has all four major networks.

However, there is not one person in the rural part of this country who receives only CBS and not NBC or ABC.

vtbub
03-12-2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by panerd
However, there is not one person in the rural part of this country who receives only CBS and not NBC or ABC.

My folks only receive CBS.

panerd
03-12-2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by vtbub
My folks only receive CBS.

How is this even possible?

Taur
03-12-2003, 10:20 PM
This is just plain stupid. I have directv, so I have about 25 choices for 24/7 news channels. It is just plain stupid to broadcast the war on every damn channel. Just let CBS run a little ticker at the bottom of the screen directing viewers where to turn for the news.

What is so wrong with wanting to watch basketball? They have 175 other channels to screw up!!!