Cap'n says its additional content.TheH2 wrote:Lol. That's clearly a lot easier for someone that was also right to say.ip_law-hokie wrote:I’m happy to acknowledge that you were right, H2.TheH2 wrote:Well, some of the numbers aren't true but the general theme is correct. I never said anything different. All I said was the NFL brings numbers. The TV deals *could* continue to go up because it is the best way to get the most viewers. The only definitive statement was that they would start paying more per pair of eyeballs. That's exactly what is happening (a hell of a lot more) .CFB Apologist wrote:TV ratings are down 17% the past two years, Ad revenue is down 7%,this years super bowl will be the lowest rated in 20 years - but according to you none of that is true, so we can all sleep better. Thanks.
The difference between you and me is that I take all of the same information and come to a different conclusion. That conclusion was just proved right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This one is pretty clear. I'm a little amazed at the hoops they are jumping through.
It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the last!
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
USN_Hokie wrote:I don't need to watch a game when I can read the article which details the differences.ip_law-hokie wrote:Since you haven't watched a football game since Janet Jackson showed a boobie, I can understand that you wouldn't know that there is already a Thursday night game that was carried by CBS and NFL network I believe.USN_Hokie wrote:Sounds like it's different contract for different content for more games.
People who know, know.
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
You're not really this dense are you? Maybe you should take your socks off so you can count past 10.ip_law-hokie wrote:Cap'n says its additional content.TheH2 wrote:Lol. That's clearly a lot easier for someone that was also right to say.ip_law-hokie wrote:I’m happy to acknowledge that you were right, H2.TheH2 wrote:Well, some of the numbers aren't true but the general theme is correct. I never said anything different. All I said was the NFL brings numbers. The TV deals *could* continue to go up because it is the best way to get the most viewers. The only definitive statement was that they would start paying more per pair of eyeballs. That's exactly what is happening (a hell of a lot more) .CFB Apologist wrote:TV ratings are down 17% the past two years, Ad revenue is down 7%,this years super bowl will be the lowest rated in 20 years - but according to you none of that is true, so we can all sleep better. Thanks.
The difference between you and me is that I take all of the same information and come to a different conclusion. That conclusion was just proved right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This one is pretty clear. I'm a little amazed at the hoops they are jumping through.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
They already had these Thursday games and they already licensed digital rights. What’s new?USN_Hokie wrote:You're not really this dense are you? Maybe you should take your socks off so you can count past 10.ip_law-hokie wrote:Cap'n says its additional content.TheH2 wrote:Lol. That's clearly a lot easier for someone that was also right to say.ip_law-hokie wrote:I’m happy to acknowledge that you were right, H2.TheH2 wrote:Well, some of the numbers aren't true but the general theme is correct. I never said anything different. All I said was the NFL brings numbers. The TV deals *could* continue to go up because it is the best way to get the most viewers. The only definitive statement was that they would start paying more per pair of eyeballs. That's exactly what is happening (a hell of a lot more) .CFB Apologist wrote:TV ratings are down 17% the past two years, Ad revenue is down 7%,this years super bowl will be the lowest rated in 20 years - but according to you none of that is true, so we can all sleep better. Thanks.
The difference between you and me is that I take all of the same information and come to a different conclusion. That conclusion was just proved right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This one is pretty clear. I'm a little amazed at the hoops they are jumping through.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
Investors don't seem to think this was the greatest idea...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
USN_Hokie wrote:Investors don't seem to think this was the greatest idea...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
We'll see. That's going to knock down the Sunday and Monday contracts. I read that Fox felt comfortable making that deal because they got Bud Light to sponsor the game, so they got some guaranteed income. It's a big risk for sure. They have kneelers and Trump bad mouthing them, lots of head winds.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
TV contract truthers. I like it.
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
I’d take that bet.awesome guy wrote:USN_Hokie wrote:Investors don't seem to think this was the greatest idea...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
We'll see. That's going to knock down the Sunday and Monday contracts. I read that Fox felt comfortable making that deal because they got Bud Light to sponsor the game, so they got some guaranteed income. It's a big risk for sure. They have kneelers and Trump bad mouthing them, lots of head winds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
Right or wrong, Fox has been buying up on-air talent and live programming as they try and expand their impact in the sports arena. Essentially they are doing what ESPN did 10 years ago, but broadening by adding streaming to traditional cable. We'll see if they have better financial success with this approach than ESPN did.
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
And unlike ESPN, Fox is in the sports business. They don't get involved with politics as much.133743Hokie wrote:Right or wrong, Fox has been buying up on-air talent and live programming as they try and expand their impact in the sports arena. Essentially they are doing what ESPN did 10 years ago, but broadening by adding streaming to traditional cable. We'll see if they have better financial success with this approach than ESPN did.
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
Right or wrong, if eyeballs are less, dollars are not going to be less. The NFL extracted a little more consumer surplus (now making it producer surplus).133743Hokie wrote:Right or wrong, Fox has been buying up on-air talent and live programming as they try and expand their impact in the sports arena. Essentially they are doing what ESPN did 10 years ago, but broadening by adding streaming to traditional cable. We'll see if they have better financial success with this approach than ESPN did.
133743Hokie wrote:Their collective deal will be less. And the majority of viewers are not part of the Amazon, Facebook, Twitter crowd but traditional cable TV. Again, it's all about the total number of viewers and that is currently down and, even with expanded media options, is likely to continue downward. If the eyeballs are less the dollars are less.
People who know, know.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
Your point? No one knows enough about this deal to pass judgement one way or another.TheH2 wrote:Right or wrong, if eyeballs are less, dollars are not going to be less. The NFL extracted a little more consumer surplus (now making it producer surplus).133743Hokie wrote:Right or wrong, Fox has been buying up on-air talent and live programming as they try and expand their impact in the sports arena. Essentially they are doing what ESPN did 10 years ago, but broadening by adding streaming to traditional cable. We'll see if they have better financial success with this approach than ESPN did.
133743Hokie wrote:Their collective deal will be less. And the majority of viewers are not part of the Amazon, Facebook, Twitter crowd but traditional cable TV. Again, it's all about the total number of viewers and that is currently down and, even with expanded media options, is likely to continue downward. If the eyeballs are less the dollars are less.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
Cap'n did. Until he decided that he didn't.133743Hokie wrote:Your point? No one knows enough about this deal to pass judgement one way or another.TheH2 wrote:Right or wrong, if eyeballs are less, dollars are not going to be less. The NFL extracted a little more consumer surplus (now making it producer surplus).133743Hokie wrote:Right or wrong, Fox has been buying up on-air talent and live programming as they try and expand their impact in the sports arena. Essentially they are doing what ESPN did 10 years ago, but broadening by adding streaming to traditional cable. We'll see if they have better financial success with this approach than ESPN did.
133743Hokie wrote:Their collective deal will be less. And the majority of viewers are not part of the Amazon, Facebook, Twitter crowd but traditional cable TV. Again, it's all about the total number of viewers and that is currently down and, even with expanded media options, is likely to continue downward. If the eyeballs are less the dollars are less.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
Really, we know the price/game they paid. We know the price of streaming rights. We know TV ratings have dropped what 20% in 2 years? We could calculate that pretty easily but let's agree on that.133743Hokie wrote:Your point? No one knows enough about this deal to pass judgement one way or another.TheH2 wrote:Right or wrong, if eyeballs are less, dollars are not going to be less. The NFL extracted a little more consumer surplus (now making it producer surplus).133743Hokie wrote:Right or wrong, Fox has been buying up on-air talent and live programming as they try and expand their impact in the sports arena. Essentially they are doing what ESPN did 10 years ago, but broadening by adding streaming to traditional cable. We'll see if they have better financial success with this approach than ESPN did.
133743Hokie wrote:Their collective deal will be less. And the majority of viewers are not part of the Amazon, Facebook, Twitter crowd but traditional cable TV. Again, it's all about the total number of viewers and that is currently down and, even with expanded media options, is likely to continue downward. If the eyeballs are less the dollars are less.
Fox paid more per game, after backing out streaming rights.
Ratings are down 20%.
133743Hokie wrote:Their collective deal will be less.
It was not less, it was more.
The eyeballs are less, the dollars are more.133743Hokie wrote:If the eyeballs are less the dollars are less.
Please, please, please, please, please, show that you have the ability to look at the information above and emphatically state their your two statements are incorrect. Please think logically. This one doesn't take much critical thinking. If we can't agree that 1+1 = 2, it's not worth the discussion.
People who know, know.
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
The NFL acknowledges that ratings, attendance, and ad venue are down sharply from the past several years. TheH2 disagrees with this, and thus posts about it as some "gotcha". I agree with the NFL's own numbers, but that's just me. He is like the guys that ignore EVERY Native American poll published that they are not offended by the Redskins name- Collingsworth and other mentally weak liberals disagree with the hard data, so they still say native Americans are offended. It's funny.
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
Where did I disagree with this. I'm providing the ratings information. The reason I was ridiculed is because I acknowledged the ratings decline (indeed posted the ratings) and said networks would continue to pay "out the arse". Furthermore, I never said networks would pay more, just that they would pay more per viewer. I think a few others here actually said the next TV deal would be bigger (DC & IP?). So, you actually don't have an analytical problem, you have a reading comprehension problem. The fact that you can't read doesn't mean that I'm "mentally weak" (see paying more per eyeball) it just means your reading comprehension sucks.CFB Apologist wrote:The NFL acknowledges that ratings, attendance, and ad venue are down sharply from the past several years. TheH2 disagrees with this
People who know, know.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
I said it would be bigger, and the networks would overpay. When the sunday contracts are renewed, it will be the largest ever.TheH2 wrote:Where did I disagree with this. I'm providing the ratings information. The reason I was ridiculed is because I acknowledged the ratings decline (indeed posted the ratings) and said networks would continue to pay "out the arse". Furthermore, I never said networks would pay more, just that they would pay more per viewer. I think a few others here actually said the next TV deal would be bigger (DC & IP?). So, you actually don't have an analytical problem, you have a reading comprehension problem. The fact that you can't read doesn't mean that I'm "mentally weak" (see paying more per eyeball) it just means your reading comprehension sucks.CFB Apologist wrote:The NFL acknowledges that ratings, attendance, and ad venue are down sharply from the past several years. TheH2 disagrees with this
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
Yeah, thought it was you - "idiot". I didn't go that far. I just knew the networks would overpay - winner's curse.ip_law-hokie wrote:I said it would be bigger, and the networks would overpay. When the sunday contracts are renewed, it will be the largest ever.TheH2 wrote:Where did I disagree with this. I'm providing the ratings information. The reason I was ridiculed is because I acknowledged the ratings decline (indeed posted the ratings) and said networks would continue to pay "out the arse". Furthermore, I never said networks would pay more, just that they would pay more per viewer. I think a few others here actually said the next TV deal would be bigger (DC & IP?). So, you actually don't have an analytical problem, you have a reading comprehension problem. The fact that you can't read doesn't mean that I'm "mentally weak" (see paying more per eyeball) it just means your reading comprehension sucks.CFB Apologist wrote:The NFL acknowledges that ratings, attendance, and ad venue are down sharply from the past several years. TheH2 disagrees with this
People who know, know.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
?? We know as much about this as we know about past deals. Making a stand on that being necessary is silly.133743Hokie wrote:Your point? No one knows enough about this deal to pass judgement one way or another.TheH2 wrote:Right or wrong, if eyeballs are less, dollars are not going to be less. The NFL extracted a little more consumer surplus (now making it producer surplus).133743Hokie wrote:Right or wrong, Fox has been buying up on-air talent and live programming as they try and expand their impact in the sports arena. Essentially they are doing what ESPN did 10 years ago, but broadening by adding streaming to traditional cable. We'll see if they have better financial success with this approach than ESPN did.
133743Hokie wrote:Their collective deal will be less. And the majority of viewers are not part of the Amazon, Facebook, Twitter crowd but traditional cable TV. Again, it's all about the total number of viewers and that is currently down and, even with expanded media options, is likely to continue downward. If the eyeballs are less the dollars are less.
What we do know is that NBC and CBS bid lower than what they previously paid for the rights.
And we know that Fox outbid them. Any reasonable person should agree that the most valuable piece of the deal, by far, is the TV rights to TNF. Reading through some of the analyses of the contract, it seems that the TV part is about $550M of the deal, or $50M per game. If you adjust for inflation, that's just about what the CBS/NBC contracts were. So, not significantly different monetarily. But, Fox does get all 11 games, not having to split them like NBC and CBS. And they get expanded digital rights to show on mobile devices. And most people think that Fox paid/overpaid that much b/c they need to expand their viewership base, and it's better than their current offerings. Currently they show Gotham, which is in a steep decline, and Orville (have no idea what that is).
So, what might make sense for Fox, maybe doesn't make sense for NBC and CBS.
Finally, no matter how you look at it, or what else may be included, the Fox bid is not a big rev hit for the NFL. It's at least on par.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
We should be considering CBS or FOX puts. CBS seems like a loser, though looking it at, it has performed better than I would have expected over the past 3 years or so.TheH2 wrote:Yeah, thought it was you - "idiot". I didn't go that far. I just knew the networks would overpay - winner's curse.ip_law-hokie wrote:I said it would be bigger, and the networks would overpay. When the sunday contracts are renewed, it will be the largest ever.TheH2 wrote:Where did I disagree with this. I'm providing the ratings information. The reason I was ridiculed is because I acknowledged the ratings decline (indeed posted the ratings) and said networks would continue to pay "out the arse". Furthermore, I never said networks would pay more, just that they would pay more per viewer. I think a few others here actually said the next TV deal would be bigger (DC & IP?). So, you actually don't have an analytical problem, you have a reading comprehension problem. The fact that you can't read doesn't mean that I'm "mentally weak" (see paying more per eyeball) it just means your reading comprehension sucks.CFB Apologist wrote:The NFL acknowledges that ratings, attendance, and ad venue are down sharply from the past several years. TheH2 disagrees with this
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/s ... ccounts-mw
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
I can read just fine. Including your first sentence here. So what is your point? this bullshit started with "NFL ratings are down" and you IP and Nolan are doing everything you can to play obtuse on said topic. You are the one with a comprehension problem.TheH2 wrote:Where did I disagree with this. I'm providing the ratings information. The reason I was ridiculed is because I acknowledged the ratings decline (indeed posted the ratings) and said networks would continue to pay "out the arse". Furthermore, I never said networks would pay more, just that they would pay more per viewer. I think a few others here actually said the next TV deal would be bigger (DC & IP?). So, you actually don't have an analytical problem, you have a reading comprehension problem. The fact that you can't read doesn't mean that I'm "mentally weak" (see paying more per eyeball) it just means your reading comprehension sucks.CFB Apologist wrote:The NFL acknowledges that ratings, attendance, and ad venue are down sharply from the past several years. TheH2 disagrees with this
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15761
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
- Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
- Party: Independent
- Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
I'm still watching if it's a game I'm interested in...contracts be damned. If the network(s) want to spend it, then more power to them.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
Yet you fail to provide a link backing your assertion. You can call it bullshit but I'm providing direct quotes from posters that are wrong. Please find a post that backs your assertion. Otherwise it's clearly a reading comprehension issue.CFB Apologist wrote:I can read just fine. Including your first sentence here. So what is your point? this bullshit started with "NFL ratings are down" and you IP and Nolan are doing everything you can to play obtuse on said topic. You are the one with a comprehension problem.TheH2 wrote:Where did I disagree with this. I'm providing the ratings information. The reason I was ridiculed is because I acknowledged the ratings decline (indeed posted the ratings) and said networks would continue to pay "out the arse". Furthermore, I never said networks would pay more, just that they would pay more per viewer. I think a few others here actually said the next TV deal would be bigger (DC & IP?). So, you actually don't have an analytical problem, you have a reading comprehension problem. The fact that you can't read doesn't mean that I'm "mentally weak" (see paying more per eyeball) it just means your reading comprehension sucks.CFB Apologist wrote:The NFL acknowledges that ratings, attendance, and ad venue are down sharply from the past several years. TheH2 disagrees with this
People who know, know.
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
Nice contrarian idea. I've not yet traded options. And I don't have the balls (or the need really) to short.ip_law-hokie wrote:We should be considering CBS or FOX puts. CBS seems like a loser, though looking it at, it has performed better than I would have expected over the past 3 years or so.TheH2 wrote:Yeah, thought it was you - "idiot". I didn't go that far. I just knew the networks would overpay - winner's curse.ip_law-hokie wrote:I said it would be bigger, and the networks would overpay. When the sunday contracts are renewed, it will be the largest ever.TheH2 wrote:Where did I disagree with this. I'm providing the ratings information. The reason I was ridiculed is because I acknowledged the ratings decline (indeed posted the ratings) and said networks would continue to pay "out the arse". Furthermore, I never said networks would pay more, just that they would pay more per viewer. I think a few others here actually said the next TV deal would be bigger (DC & IP?). So, you actually don't have an analytical problem, you have a reading comprehension problem. The fact that you can't read doesn't mean that I'm "mentally weak" (see paying more per eyeball) it just means your reading comprehension sucks.CFB Apologist wrote:The NFL acknowledges that ratings, attendance, and ad venue are down sharply from the past several years. TheH2 disagrees with this
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/s ... ccounts-mw
People who know, know.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: It's now official. New NFL TV deal greater than the las
I know you're desperately fighting this battle with some on here, but you need to recognize you dont have all the data -- no one does. So no, we dont' know what the cost of streaming rights, or even what that entails relative to prior contracts. You don't know how much, if any, of the payment is ratings driven. Does it involve a pregame and postgame show? In short you don't know the details about this contract to pass the definitive judgement you're adamant is correct.TheH2 wrote:Really, we know the price/game they paid. We know the price of streaming rights. We know TV ratings have dropped what 20% in 2 years? We could calculate that pretty easily but let's agree on that.133743Hokie wrote:Your point? No one knows enough about this deal to pass judgement one way or another.TheH2 wrote:Right or wrong, if eyeballs are less, dollars are not going to be less. The NFL extracted a little more consumer surplus (now making it producer surplus).133743Hokie wrote:Right or wrong, Fox has been buying up on-air talent and live programming as they try and expand their impact in the sports arena. Essentially they are doing what ESPN did 10 years ago, but broadening by adding streaming to traditional cable. We'll see if they have better financial success with this approach than ESPN did.
133743Hokie wrote:Their collective deal will be less. And the majority of viewers are not part of the Amazon, Facebook, Twitter crowd but traditional cable TV. Again, it's all about the total number of viewers and that is currently down and, even with expanded media options, is likely to continue downward. If the eyeballs are less the dollars are less.
Fox paid more per game, after backing out streaming rights.
Ratings are down 20%.
133743Hokie wrote:Their collective deal will be less.
It was not less, it was more.
The eyeballs are less, the dollars are more.133743Hokie wrote:If the eyeballs are less the dollars are less.
Please, please, please, please, please, show that you have the ability to look at the information above and emphatically state their your two statements are incorrect. Please think logically. This one doesn't take much critical thinking. If we can't agree that 1+1 = 2, it's not worth the discussion.
As I mentioned before, Fox is trying to expand so they're throwing money at properties.
Additionally, this is for a couple of Thursday night games per year. I suggest you hold off on your judgement as to whether the NFL is going to suffer financially until a major contract for Sunday games is re-negotiated. I know you're desperate to rub some noses in this. You used to be a reasonable, even keeled poster on here. With this thread topic you appear to quickly be shifting into dick category. Resist!