Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 85 of 85

Thread: Pacers finances baffle me

  1. #76

    Default Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    IMHO a good clause in this next Coll. Barg Agreement would be a team having the right to buy out a contract at any time for 25% of what's left. That 25% could still count against the cap, it would give teams some bargaing power, if a player like Eddie Curry, Jamaal Tinsley ect. completely fails to live up to expectations.
    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

  2. #77

    Default Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do you have numbers or a reference? As part of the discussions about why they are on a cable-only station some time (like possibly multiple years) ago, I seem to recall pretty definitive statements that it was not the same as it used to be, that many teams were having to pay for the broadcast rather than the other way around.

    That's an individual team thing, not a
    network thing or league thing and certainly not the case for the big $$ teams that everyone wants to watch. I'm not looking for
    comparisons to NFL teams or even to other teams, just a hint from someone as to what the FSN contract is and is worth.
    My source is a former Fox Sports employee. Confirmed this with them today although I didn't get the amount it's worth. I'll check the interwebs later to see if I can get an Idea.

    The network stations make more from non-sports broadcast which is the
    reason Monday Night Football moved to ESPN and the reason Pacers are on FSI. FS is such a niche station that it wouldn't make sense to broadcast anything else.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to RandyWrinkles For This Useful Post:


  4. #78

    Default Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    Quote Originally Posted by AG77
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The network stations make more from non-sports broadcast
    Here's another bit of information suggesting that sports isn't nearly as big a business as we all think it is. I don't know what plays on TV Monday Night at 9:00pm, but whatever it is, more people watch it than would watch the NFL!
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  5. #79
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,148

    Default Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Here's another bit of information suggesting that sports isn't nearly as big a business as we all think it is. I don't know what plays on TV Monday Night at 9:00pm, but whatever it is, more people watch it than would watch the NFL!
    The highest-rated Monday Night Football telecast on ABC was the Miami Dolphins' victory over the previously-undefeated Chicago Bears on December 2, 1985, which drew a national Nielsen rating of 29.6 and a share of 46. ABC's lowest-rated MNF game was the St. Louis Rams' defeat of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on October 18, 2004, which drew a 7.7 rating.

    The highest-rated MNF game on ESPN, and the highest-rated program in U.S. cable television history to date, was the Minnesota Vikings' defeat of the Green Bay Packers 30Ė23 on October 5, 2009, with a rating of 15.3. The game featured the much-hyped matchup of Vikings quarterback Brett Favre facing his longtime former Green Bay team. ESPN noted in a press release that the telecast "was watched by more than 21.8 million people. The previous record was more than 18.6 million viewers for 2008's Monday night game between the Philadelphia Eagles and Dallas Cowboys. ESPN also stated that the game drew the highest rating in the network's 30-year history. The 15.3 rating beat the 14.4 for a Bears-Vikings game on Dec. 6, 1987, during ESPN's first season of televising NFL games". [3] ESPN's lowest-rated MNF game to date was the New York Giants' defeat of the Atlanta Falcons on October 15, 2007, which drew a 5.7 rating.

    ESPN's third season of Monday Night Football was the most-watched series on cable television in 2008. It set an all-time cable viewership record for the third straight year and drew the year's three biggest cable household audiences and 13 of the top 15. In three seasons on ESPN, Monday Night Football has registered seven of the top 10 all-time biggest household audiences in cable history, led by the Eagles-Cowboys telecast on 9/15/08, which attracted cable's largest household audience ever (an average of 12,953,000 million homes).

    ESPN's 17 MNF telecasts in 2008 averaged a 8.9 rating, representing an average of 8,679,000 households (11,962,000 viewers), increases of 3%, 5% and 7%, respectively, vs. 2007 (8.6; 8,277,000 and 11,230,000). [4]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Night_Football

    9PM ratings (currently... not head to head with MNF):
    9 p.m.

    CBS: "Two and a Half Men" rerun (12 million, 7.4/12)/"The Big Bang Theory" rerun (11.5 million, 7.1/11)
    FOX: "24" (9.2 million, 5.4/9)
    ABC: "20/20" special - "Inside 'The Bachelor'" (8.4 million, 5.8/9)
    NBC: "Trauma" (5.25 million, 3.3/5)
    The CW: "Gossip Girl" (1.7 million, 1.2/2)
    http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethe...ty-monday.html
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  6. #80

    Default Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    That is good detail from BBall. I don't understand all the details.

    I believe what AG77 says, which is, "The network stations make more from non-sports broadcast." But that may have as much to do with the cost of the production and/or the licensing as with number of viewers and what they can make selling advertising.

    Perhaps NFL games do draw more viewers, but are so costly to produce and show that the networks still make more profit showing reruns of "The Big Bank Theory."

    Can anyone explain?
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  7. #81
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,148

    Default Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That is good detail from BBall. I don't understand all the details.

    I believe what AG77 says, which is, "The network stations make more from non-sports broadcast." But that may have as much to do with the cost of the production and/or the licensing as with number of viewers and what they can make selling advertising.

    Perhaps NFL games do draw more viewers, but are so costly to produce and show that the networks still make more profit showing reruns of "The Big Bank Theory."

    Can anyone explain?
    I doubt production costs are what is so expensive. Tech crew, on-air talent, cameras, truck, satellite uplink, etc.... What's probably the driving factor is the cost of the contract for the rights to show the NFL on the network.

    I'm not sure what it really means when Disney moves MNF from ABC to ESPN though (they own both)... except it probably has a halo effect for ESPN to increase that networks value and exposure and it fits with ESPN's business plan of being a Sports network. Meanwhile, ABC can show "Who Wants To Be An American Idol With Jay Leno"
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  8. #82

    Default Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not sure what it really means when Disney moves MNF from ABC to ESPN though (they own both)... except it probably has a halo effect for ESPN to increase that networks value and exposure and it fits with ESPN's business plan of being a Sports network. Meanwhile, ABC can show "Who Wants To Be An American Idol With Jay Leno"
    My statement about networks making more from non sports was very general. Sorry I wasn't clear and didn't elaborate well but it's tough from the iPhone. I actually planned on adding these details. Also, the MNF game might not have been the best example since the ratings are SO high. A better example would be part of the reason why the Pacers are not shown on a local network anymore. The local station will draw a larger audience with Gossip Girl than the Pacers (very sad but true).

    Look at it this way. The MNF games are going to draw a large percent of people interested in sports. By putting the game on ABC they still have to broadcast something on ESPN and it would reduce the overall MNF audience. Since ABC can show more than just sports related programs, they can put on a popular show that reaches a different audience besides the sports fans.

    Here's an example with numbers I made up.

    If MNF draws an 8.0 rating on ABC and whatever is on ESPN during the same time draws a 2.0 then the total audience between the two is 10.0.

    By moving MNF to ESPN it gets a 7.0 rating and the programming on ABC at the same time gets a 5.0 for a total of 12.0. There could be an additional 2 million viewers by using their current schedule. Some forms of advertising are priced on a cost per thousand scale so you can see the value of an additional 2 million viewers.

    Advertisers on MNF don't care much about losing the 1.0 ranking because those are people who don't pay for cable for one reason or another. This is not an important audience for advertisers.

    In regards to the cost of broadcasting sports, my guess is it's on the low end of things. The reason we have so many reality shows is because the production cost is much much lower compared to shows like Lost, CSI, 24, and so on. The cost of broadcasting sports is going to be more in line with reality TV than anything else.
    Last edited by RandyWrinkles; 03-17-2010 at 10:40 AM.

  9. #83
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do you have numbers or a reference? As part of the discussions about why they are on a cable-only station some time (like possibly multiple years) ago, I seem to recall pretty definitive statements that it was not the same as it used to be, that many teams were having to pay for the broadcast rather than the other way around.
    Directionally, this is definitely revenue not an expense. Can't say much more.

    I've interpreted that as "lower revenue" or that the team might assume some of the productions costs as an incentive. In most markets there is still somewhat of a bidding war for the local broadcast rights on either radio or television. The consolidation of Channel 4/59 by the Tribune probably hurt the Pacers in that regard.

    As for the cost of producing/ live broadcasting a game vs. broadcasting a network show from the satellite feed or bargain-basement Seinfeld re-run... I think this should be obvious which is more expensive to the station.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to ChicagoJ For This Useful Post:


  11. #84

    Default Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoJ
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Can't say much more.
    you don't have to say anything. Just attach some old spreadsheets you've got there in your office and we'll figure it out on our own!


    .
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  12. #85
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    Yeah, that's the part I really can't do! Even if certain data is five+ years old, I still can't do it.

    One of the transactions we worked on had the following stipulation: Each "banker's book" was custom made with its unique typo's and the list was maintained in a database. If any information was leaked, they could trace it. So there were probably 50-60 lawyers, bankers, accountants and consultants with the book. Its not that hard to keep the details suppressed. That was for a baseball team (not a local one), so I didn't even care anyway! But somebody would have.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  13. The Following User Says Thank You to ChicagoJ For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Pacers-Celtics Matchups (IndyStar)
    By ChicagoJ in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:36 AM
  2. Pacers End the Season with a 115-108 Win Over Bucks
    By rocksballer58 in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 04:47 PM
  3. Pacers Destroy Thunder, 117-109, Slim Playoff Hopes Still Alive
    By rocksballer58 in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-06-2009, 04:23 PM
  4. J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!
    By FerengiMiller in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 07-19-2008, 01:08 AM
  5. Pacers History 1993-1994 Season
    By Sollozzo in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-04-2004, 03:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •