3 ms·

Only big events are still on broadcast. College football, for instance, is spread between: ABC, NBC, Fox, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SEC Network, Big Ten Network, AC

Only big events are still on broadcast. College football, for instance, is spread between: ABC, NBC, Fox, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SEC Network, Big Ten Network, ACC Network, Bally/other RSNs... 7+ of those are cable-only. Local non-big pro sports in most markets are RSN-only as well.

AlbertCory 4y ago
True. The NLDS and ALDS in baseball were all pay-only, except maybe one game on the weekend. I forget about the LCS's. but both the big NCAA football games tomorrow will be on broadcast, I'm pretty sure.
lom888 4y ago
I am a cord-cutter. On Sunday I can watch the NFL from 1pm until 11pm on three separate channels. On Saturdays I have a choice of three or four channels for college football and I have games on most of the day. During hoops season I can watch college basketball on some weeknights and then during much of the weekend. That being said, I will not be able to watch any of the College Football Playoff over the air, and I only get a smattering of baseball games over the air during the regular season.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Damn. I just checked & you're right about NCAA tomorrow. For baseball, I did buy mlb.tv, and it was great to be able to watch any game (except the hometown ones).
LocalH 4y ago
This isn't because broadcast "can't afford" sports. It's because they've learned that moving this amount of sports away from OTA makes them more money. ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU/SECN/ACCN are all the same company, all under the Disney umbrella. Bally is what used to be FSN, which was temporarily owned by Disney as well after their acquisition of Fox, but Disney was ordered to divest itself of FSN, so they're now owned by Sinclair. As well, Fox's broadcasting properties were spun off into their own company right before the acquisition, including BTN. There are basically four major sports juggernauts in the US right now. ABC/ESPN, NBC, CBS, and Fox (which for obvious reasons Disney was not allowed to operate after the merger). Notice how that does cover all the broadcast networks. The lack of sports on broadcast television is not because they "can't afford" to license it. Big events are only on broadcast because there would be riots if, say people couldn't watch the Super Bowl without paying a subscription fee. I remember when Disney moved MNF to ESPN, quite a few people complained.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Thanks. I'm trying to unravel the 2nd paragraph. You seem to be explaining more why sports are NOT on OTA than why some still are. I'm not questioning the former. "There would be riots" certainly explains the Super Bowl and World Series, but lots of other events are on OTA, too. In particular, Fox. You said, "Fox's broadcasting properties were spun off into their own company." So why do Fox's broadcasting stations have any sports? Is it that OTA still has a large viewership and thus ads are sometimes more lucrative than (small) subscription revenue?
  - LocalH 4y ago
    Part of it is capitalizing on FOMO - if you can see some of the sports your relevant friend/family circle follows, and you wish to keep up with all of it, you're more likely to purchase the additional subscriptions necessary to do so. Also, remember that a huge percentage of "OTA" viewership is from a non-OTA source, which today requires payment of fees to station affiliates (some of which are owned and operated by the networks, and all of which have agreements to pay a portion of those fees to the networks, even when independently owned). So the networks are making money from "OTA" besides the advertising. Thus, they do have an incentive to want people watching OTA, but they also want the additional money they can get from subscription services. I don't think I'd class OTA as a "loss leader", even if it does sometimes serve some of the same purposes as actually providing a service as a loss leader would.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      Thanks again. Here's the NFL on OTA today for me: https://www.tvtv.us/ca/san-jose/95129/luUSA-OTA95129 https://www.tvtv.us/ca/san-jose/95129/luUSA-OTA95129 10 am on CBS: Broncos at Kansas City 1 pm on Fox: 49ers at Las Vegas 5:30 on NBC: Steelers at Ravens can you say more about what "huge percentage of 'OTA' viewership is from a non-OTA source" ? What does that mean? Edit: Maybe you mean "people with a cable package that includes local stations?" That's kind of circular, or perverse: they think they can't get them OTA (or maybe they really can't), so they pay for them. I don't think that really devalues OTA. Further hypothesis: when people say "I can't get any reception where I live" they're talking about the old analog days? When broadcasting first went digital, I bought one of those converters and used my old antenna. It really sucked and I got hardly anything. Now I have a new digital antenna, and it's like night and day.

AlbertCory 4y ago

True. The NLDS and ALDS in baseball were all pay-only, except maybe one game on the weekend. I forget about the LCS's. but both the big NCAA football games tomorrow will be on broadcast, I'm pretty sure.

lom888 4y ago

I am a cord-cutter. On Sunday I can watch the NFL from 1pm until 11pm on three separate channels. On Saturdays I have a choice of three or four channels for college football and I have games on most of the day. During hoops season I can watch college basketball on some weeknights and then during much of the weekend. That being said, I will not be able to watch any of the College Football Playoff over the air, and I only get a smattering of baseball games over the air during the regular season.

AlbertCory 4y ago
Damn. I just checked & you're right about NCAA tomorrow. For baseball, I did buy mlb.tv, and it was great to be able to watch any game (except the hometown ones).

LocalH 4y ago

This isn't because broadcast "can't afford" sports. It's because they've learned that moving this amount of sports away from OTA makes them more money. ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU/SECN/ACCN are all the same company, all under the Disney umbrella. Bally is what used to be FSN, which was temporarily owned by Disney as well after their acquisition of Fox, but Disney was ordered to divest itself of FSN, so they're now owned by Sinclair. As well, Fox's broadcasting properties were spun off into their own company right before the acquisition, including BTN. There are basically four major sports juggernauts in the US right now. ABC/ESPN, NBC, CBS, and Fox (which for obvious reasons Disney was not allowed to operate after the merger). Notice how that does cover all the broadcast networks. The lack of sports on broadcast television is not because they "can't afford" to license it. Big events are only on broadcast because there would be riots if, say people couldn't watch the Super Bowl without paying a subscription fee. I remember when Disney moved MNF to ESPN, quite a few people complained.

AlbertCory 4y ago
Thanks. I'm trying to unravel the 2nd paragraph. You seem to be explaining more why sports are NOT on OTA than why some still are. I'm not questioning the former. "There would be riots" certainly explains the Super Bowl and World Series, but lots of other events are on OTA, too. In particular, Fox. You said, "Fox's broadcasting properties were spun off into their own company." So why do Fox's broadcasting stations have any sports? Is it that OTA still has a large viewership and thus ads are sometimes more lucrative than (small) subscription revenue?
- LocalH 4y ago
  Part of it is capitalizing on FOMO - if you can see some of the sports your relevant friend/family circle follows, and you wish to keep up with all of it, you're more likely to purchase the additional subscriptions necessary to do so. Also, remember that a huge percentage of "OTA" viewership is from a non-OTA source, which today requires payment of fees to station affiliates (some of which are owned and operated by the networks, and all of which have agreements to pay a portion of those fees to the networks, even when independently owned). So the networks are making money from "OTA" besides the advertising. Thus, they do have an incentive to want people watching OTA, but they also want the additional money they can get from subscription services. I don't think I'd class OTA as a "loss leader", even if it does sometimes serve some of the same purposes as actually providing a service as a loss leader would.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Thanks again. Here's the NFL on OTA today for me: https://www.tvtv.us/ca/san-jose/95129/luUSA-OTA95129 https://www.tvtv.us/ca/san-jose/95129/luUSA-OTA95129 10 am on CBS: Broncos at Kansas City 1 pm on Fox: 49ers at Las Vegas 5:30 on NBC: Steelers at Ravens can you say more about what "huge percentage of 'OTA' viewership is from a non-OTA source" ? What does that mean? Edit: Maybe you mean "people with a cable package that includes local stations?" That's kind of circular, or perverse: they think they can't get them OTA (or maybe they really can't), so they pay for them. I don't think that really devalues OTA. Further hypothesis: when people say "I can't get any reception where I live" they're talking about the old analog days? When broadcasting first went digital, I bought one of those converters and used my old antenna. It really sucked and I got hardly anything. Now I have a new digital antenna, and it's like night and day.