|
WGN No More?
|
11-17-2014, 06:39 PM
In my opinion, a shitty bridge deal could work out really great. If the ratings are solid when the synced deal is possible in 2019, and if the business model for how content will be delivered in the currently-in-flux market becomes clearer, the Cubs could be in the catbird seat. Negotiating a long-term 82 game deal then could be much, much better than negotiating one now.
11-17-2014, 09:24 PM
The Phillies won 81, 73, and 73 games in the last three seasons. They signed their mega deal in January of 2014. Signed that deal despite "steep declines" in TV ratings over the last few years after having insanely good ratings while they were winning. This is the last i'll comment on this.
Edit: I'd like to add that this deal came on top of the knowledge that the Phillies will probably be bad for quite some time. Quote:The 2014 Phillies aren't the worst team in franchise history. Not even close. But, for reasons both athletic and aesthetic, they might well be the least interesting. 
11-17-2014, 11:12 PM
Quote:In my opinion, a shitty bridge deal could work out really great. If the ratings are solid when the synced deal is possible in 2019, and if the business model for how content will be delivered in the currently-in-flux market becomes clearer, the Cubs could be in the catbird seat. Negotiating a long-term 82 game deal then could be much, much better than negotiating one now.Could be, but I'd day most feel the longer time passes the worse, because of worry of the RSN sports bubble bursting. Some think it's burst already and sight the Astros and the Dodgers woes. But yes, to your point, we might have a new model that the Cubs can be the first to cash in with, rather than one of the last with the current.
11-17-2014, 11:45 PM
Quote: </blockquote> The Phillies on the surface seem like a good argument against the notion of short term ratings impacting deals, and in totality it probably is, but Funk, if you look back at the deal there's some stumbling blocks... First, the Phillies ratings absolutely peaked in 2011, they had an average year in 2012, and negotiated that deal in/after the 2013 season. You're talking at most two bad seasons (well one that was .500) not what the Cubs have done over a longer period. Plus, record high ratings 3 seasons prior. So in the last three years prior to the Phil's deal you could categorize their ratings as "record high", "average to slightly above avg", and "low". Second, in that .500 season and the one that followed, the Phillies still bested the Cubs ratings wise fairly significantly, despite the Cubs being in a larger TV market. In fact in 2012, a lot was written about the Phillies ratings fall from the high the year before, but they were still 4th in viewers behind the Yankees, Mets and Tigers. Their low should, by market size, be lower than ours, but, partially because there are Sox fans in our market, and we have so many day games, and it was several years of losing as opposed to 1-2, they're not. Our low has been sub 50K homes, their low prior to their deal was still at 100K. Third, and most importantly, a lot has actually been written about the Phil's deal being too small and how ratings may have effected that. For instance, the Angels got a better deal overall prior to the Phillies' deal, but with the notion being the Phillies would best it when it was their turn. They didn't. Now LA is a much larger market, but the Phillies viewership, even in '12/'13 prior to their deal, was still higher than the Angels in terms of total viewers. Some have written the decreasing ratings lessened their take in their deal. (the counter is probably it was the bubble bursting, but search for "phillies tv deal 2 years late" and you'll see some articles on both sides of the discussion.)
11-18-2014, 12:47 AM
So for those of you keeping score at home:
When I raised the fact that the Dodgers got a record TV deal one year removed from having terrible ratings (during the endless debate on this over the summer in which this was beat to death to the point that I have no desire to seriously debate this again), the answer was: "yes, but the ratings improved immediately before the deal." When funkster raises that the Phillies' ratings plummeted right before they got their huge TV deal, the answer is: "but just a few years before, the Phillies' ratings were really good." I wish I could find a picture of Xena that fit here.
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.
![[Image: ITgoyeg.png]](http://i.imgur.com/ITgoyeg.png)
11-18-2014, 05:27 AM
Quote:So for those of you keeping score at home:Fit what? The Dodgers had very good ratings the year prior to the their new deal. Did the Cubs? The Phillies had good ratings 2 seasons prior to their deal and record breaking ratings 3 seasons before. Did the Cubs? If you want to use one of those teams to make an argument that ratings don't matter, let's at least define what window of time you're looking at. Say it's a short term deal and we're looking at 5 years of past ratings and ad sales to project the next 5, well the 5 year run up to the Dodgers deal included multiple playoff appearances and multiple seasons of high ratings. As did the Phillies'. What has the Cubs' past 5 years looked like? Nothing like those two teams'. Both teams would trump the Cubs substantially in average ratings over that period. It's reasonable to think broadcasters would like to see the Cubs turn a corner and perform well again. That doesn't mean they don't think the viewers will be there if they win, no one is saying that, the argument is simply they haven't won for some time and nothing has been trending up in terms of sales and ratings. In a nutshell, the Cubs ability to sell broadcasters on the belief that they will be a highly watched, winning franchise in the near and/or long term (depending on the deal) is key and they can certainly do it without high and/or improving ratings and recent success, but you do see how those things are much stronger arguments and evidence than say, pointing at a baseball prospectus ranking of your farm system, right? Actual results are going to trump all, particularly your own projections, particularly when you're the Cubs. But Kid, what's so confusing to me about this isn't whether or not you think recent past ratings, be it a year or 3 years or 5 years or 10 years effect tv deals and negotiations, it's that you you seem so dismissive of the concept when it's being sighted as an issue not just here, but seemingly by all those covering and involved in the negotiations, with perhaps the lone exception of Tom Ricketts. Your Xena pic essentially said to Coldneck, "just because you say it doesn't mean anything" so I post a few articles from different sources (tribune and non for the conspiracy theorists) saying the ratings are an issue and your response is- "Sources" said it in an article. It is indisputable fact." Why mock arguments as if they're so out there when honestly, you're now in the minority on this and I don't think you're being mocked for the theory that past ratings aren't impacting this negotiation? (Which trust me, from a TV standpoint, is a much more mockable argument.)
11-18-2014, 09:04 AM
Quote:Fit what? The Dodgers had very good ratings the year prior to the their new deal. Did the Cubs? The Phillies had good ratings 2 seasons prior to their deal and record breaking ratings 3 seasons before. Did the Cubs? If you want to use one of those teams to make an argument that ratings don't matter, let's at least define what window of time you're looking at. Say it's a short term deal and we're looking at 5 years of past ratings and ad sales to project the next 5, well the 5 year run up to the Dodgers deal included multiple playoff appearances and multiple seasons of high ratings. As did the Phillies'. What has the Cubs' past 5 years looked like? Nothing like those two teams'. Both teams would trump the Cubs substantially in average ratings over that period. It's reasonable to think broadcasters would like to see the Cubs turn a corner and perform well again. That doesn't mean they don't think the viewers will be there if they win, no one is saying that, the argument is simply they haven't won for some time and nothing has been trending up in terms of sales and ratings. In a nutshell, the Cubs ability to sell broadcasters on the belief that they will be a highly watched, winning franchise in the near and/or long term (depending on the deal) is key and they can certainly do it without high and/or improving ratings and recent success, but you do see how those things are much stronger arguments and evidence than say, pointing at a baseball prospectus ranking of your farm system, right? Actual results are going to trump all, particularly your own projections, particularly when you're the Cubs. But Kid, what's so confusing to me about this isn't whether or not you think recent past ratings, be it a year or 3 years or 5 years or 10 years effect tv deals and negotiations, it's that you you seem so dismissive of the concept when it's being sighted as an issue not just here, but seemingly by all those covering and involved in the negotiations, with perhaps the lone exception of Tom Ricketts. Your Xena pic essentially said to Coldneck, "just because you say it doesn't mean anything" so I post a few articles from different sources (tribune and non for the conspiracy theorists) saying the ratings are an issue and your response is- "Sources" said it in an article. It is indisputable fact." Why mock arguments as if they're so out there when honestly, you're now in the minority on this and I don't think you're being mocked for the theory that past ratings aren't impacting this negotiation? (Which trust me, from a TV standpoint, is a much more mockable argument.) </div> </blockquote> Kid's mocking behavior results from not having a solid argument. He essentially has nothing else to say but doesn't want to throw in the towel. It's okay that he mocked me. It actually made me smile because it was an indication that he understands his argument is flimsy.
11-18-2014, 09:53 AM
This will be my last post in this thread on this topic, whether to discuss substantively or to mock. So these are my points. You can respond to them with another yard of text and say I won't respond because my arguments are weak, but I won't take the bait.
This idea of "why won't you respond" or "you won't respond because you know your argument is flimsy" is bullshit. I must have posted 30 times arguing about this over the summer or whenever the fuck it was. I stand by what I said there and don't have the time, energy, or desire to reargue this all over again. The point that I was making is that when it was pointed out over the summer that the Dodgers had terrible ratings one year before they signed a record deal, your answer at that time was that the Dodgers' ratings improved significantly the season immediately preceding that deal. When funkster pointed out that the Phillies' ratings were terrible just before they got their new deal, somehow it now becomes important that their ratings were better before that (i.e., in the same time period in which it was previously argued to be irrelevant that the Dodgers' ratings were terrible). I believe this is obviously contradictory, but I recognize that you are going to try to come up with a way to explain it away. From the beginning the idea of what "sources" have said makes me roll my eyes. A year ago, "sources" said the Cubs would get a giant deal. Now, "sources" say that they won't and "sources" say why that is. Brick came up with a perfect explanation of how some of these "sources" are full of shit. As for mockery (although I legitimately can't believe we're spending this much time on a Xena picture): Sheps, I didn't do that to you. You have both in the previous thread, and here, at least attempted to provide some support for your position. I attempted to do the same when I was actively debating this topic in the thread. Coldneck never did that. All Coldneck did and does is reiterate his opinion despite the fact that he knows nothing about the topic (p.s., neither do I, but I at least backed up my position with numbers and facts in the other thread and not just my opinion). The Xena picture was in response to a post in which Coldneck said "A is so. A is because of B. B is because of C." Yet, he has never provided anything to support his position other than his own uneducated (on the subject, not in general) opinion . Hence the "Because I said so" picture - which, not for nothing, was posted before you linked to that article about what "sources" are now saying. As for my being in the minority? Um, what? I count you and Coldneck backing this point up (and I seem to recall Ivy briefly chiming in on the other thread). Go look at the other thread and this one. That's an interesting way of concluding that you have the majority position. Also, the word is "cited," not "sighted." Seacrest out.
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.
11-18-2014, 02:33 PM
Minority not here, minority based on the coverage of the talks. If you read an article about the negotiations, they pretty much all talk about the Cubs weak ratings over the last several years being an issue. The opinion that the Cubs last several years of terrible ratings and thus ad sales is having ramifications on their current attempt to secure a favorable short term deal, or tempt someone into a long, seems to me to be a majority opinion. I don't mean here, I'm referencing the multiple articles posted here about the subject, specifically the last 3. Your response to that seems to be the people writing the articles don't know what they're talking about, which could be true, but Kid I don't see where you've shown that much evidence to the contrary, be it today or way back when. Again, if you think the Cubs last several years of ratings are like the Dodgers' or the Phillies', it's a fair argument I've fully admitted has some merit, but I beg to differ overall and I think I illustrated the differences fairly clearly. Without rehashing it in full, for the Cubs ratings to be like the Dodgers the Cubs would have had to have good ratings in 2014, not bad, and strong overall in the 5 year run up to the deal.
Now, you say Coldneck has an uneducated opinion on the subject. I did a news search for "Cubs TV deal" and posted snipits from the first 2 articles that popped up talking about how the ratings have impacted the deal, thus likely showing where Cold formed that opinion. He likely educated himself on the subject simply by reading any article about the negotiations over the last few weeks or months. Is it still opinion? Sure, and the people writing the articles could absolutely be wrong, but it's not an uncommon opinion, that's all I was trying to point out. Again, outside of Tom Ricketts, I'd ask where are you reading that the ratings aren't an issue in these negotiations? Finally, I've pointed out my concern about the ratings for years, well before last summer even, but every time I've also said I still think the Cubs will get a big deal. A lot of people have looked at the Cubs ratings as and issue, as a stumbling block, but one that could be overcome thanks to so many other positives. You can, for instance, say a team is going to win their division, but the bullpen is terrible and is an issue. Even if the team does win their division, it doesn't mean the bullpen wasn't a problem. I've always thought the ratings would be an issue they'd overcome, as have many people writing about the subject over the years (and keep in mind a year ago, the assumption was we had seen the bottom, the stadium would be much further along, etc). Now if they get the not so great deal that's being rumored now a lot of factors are at play, including uncertainty in the market, but ratings and how good the Cubs have been over the last 5 years are almost certainly one of the issues, just the same as a bad bullpen would be if that mythical team missed the playoffs. 
11-20-2014, 03:16 PM
Sort of related to the TV deal. WGN pulling the plug on its new FM sports station after 9 months. Kaplan will probably be looking for a new job, and wonder if he tries to move on to WBBM the new Cubs home.
Quote:Robertfeder.com
12-11-2014, 01:12 PM
Matt Spiegel reports:
From a solid source: Cubs in serious talks,deal nearly final, to put 45 games on WGN-9, local only, for 2015. Fate of other 15 games unclear. CSN will most likely carry the other 15 or so games, from prior rumors.
12-11-2014, 03:47 PM
The other 15 or so games? That still leaves 102 more.
12-11-2014, 03:54 PM
A majority of the games are already contractually bound to be on CSN.
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.
12-11-2014, 05:02 PM
There are 12 nationally televised games. CSN already has 90 or so, while WGN will carry 45. That leaves roughly 15 games undetermined. Those used to be on WCIU, but who knows where they may end up. If not CSN, then they have to be carried OTA.
12-11-2014, 10:21 PM
Thanks. I get it now.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
