Petition to stop noon home games

[Augusta_Jacket]

Most people who love sports pay extra for the additional sports networks. I get all of them as part of my package, although it's not just the "basic" cable package. I end up paying for a lot of stations I have no interest in, but that's the way it works. Unless the local cable companies decline to include the ACC network in their sports packages, then it should be available.

Most people who love sports are still going to watch the main channels unless their team is playing elsewhere. The main channels are where the biggest games tend to be, and people who love sports want to watch the best matchups if they aren't watching "their" team play. Ratings bears this out. Even though the SEC network is still the top rated conference network, it lost over 8 million subscribers in the last couple of years. What they are finding out is that no one wants to watch the lesser games outside of the fanbases, so in order to drive the network numbers, they have to play the big time games on the network. But in order for that to happen, the big networks, who pay the money, have to agree to let a marquee matchup be played on the conference network.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

There are quite a few good, if not significant games that appear on channels other than the "main channels," if by "main channels," you mean ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX.

Add ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU (not ESPN3) to your list.

But you're still missing the point. It's not only about the matchup, but how the teams draw ratings. GT doesn't draw ratings. For all the losing seasons latey, Florida and Tennessee draw huge ratings, and still get a lot of prime time matchups. Money is the bottom line, and if the team on the TV doesn't generate ratings, then they won't be on the TV often. (At least, not on the biggest channels)

 

[Treb1982]

Add ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU (not ESPN3) to your list.

But you're still missing the point. It's not only about the matchup, but how the teams draw ratings. GT doesn't draw ratings. For all the losing seasons latey, Florida and Tennessee draw huge ratings, and still get a lot of prime time matchups. Money is the bottom line, and if the team on the TV doesn't generate ratings, then they won't be on the TV often. (At least, not on the biggest channels)

Agree Clemson, Miami, VT will not be noon UGA this year will probably be night game if top 10

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Add ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU (not ESPN3) to your list.

But you're still missing the point. It's not only about the matchup, but how the teams draw ratings. GT doesn't draw ratings. For all the losing seasons latey, Florida and Tennessee draw huge ratings, and still get a lot of prime time matchups. Money is the bottom line, and if the team on the TV doesn't generate ratings, then they won't be on the TV often. (At least, not on the biggest channels)

But those are almost invariably part of pay channels. As far as missing the point, my original question was about how the new ACC network will change things. The fact is that, other than Clemson, FSU, and possibly Miami, no ACC teams will have big ratings, but those three can't get all the prime time assignments once the ACC network comes into the picture.

 

[Gold1]

But those are almost invariably part of pay channels. As far as missing the point, my original question was about how the new ACC network will change things. The fact is that, other than Clemson, FSU, and possibly Miami, no ACC teams will have big ratings, but those three can't get all the prime time assignments once the ACC network comes into the picture.

EXACTLY

 

[JacketFromUGA]

But those are almost invariably part of pay channels. As far as missing the point, my original question was about how the new ACC network will change things. The fact is that, other than Clemson, FSU, and possibly Miami, no ACC teams will have big ratings, but those three can't get all the prime time assignments once the ACC network comes into the picture.

what you seem to not be acknowledging is when we are Noon on ESPN for our geographic region we get viewers who are outside of our fanbase. Either they just left it on ESPN after Gameday, or they are waiting for their team and decided "yea GT vs ACC Team is fine lol look at that offense (or I like watching their offense)"

If GT is on at 7pm on even ESPNU we only get viewers n either fanbase and maybe some diehard ACC fans. Most every other viewer is watching the ESPN 7pm game. 7pm on ACC Network will still only be viewers from each fanbase no one else.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

I'd just like to know how we can get some of those crappy 3 pm or 7 pm matchups.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

But those are almost invariably part of pay channels. As far as missing the point, my original question was about how the new ACC network will change things. The fact is that, other than Clemson, FSU, and possibly Miami, no ACC teams will have big ratings, but those three can't get all the prime time assignments once the ACC network comes into the picture.

Yes, The ESPNs are pay channels, but they are on the basic cable packages of most providers. As I have stated, the ACC channel will really change little. As has also been stated, most games are "televised" when you include streaming sites, so a few of those "streamed" games will move to a lower tier cable channel (ACC Network). There are no provisions to force ESPN to put a "fair" distribution of teams on its premium channels (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2) and unless GT magically starts bringing in tons more viewers, then we won't routinely get those games, unless we're playing a major opponent. So yes, those 3, plus VT, will get the bulk of the prime time slots on the main channels, and most of them on the ACC network as well. The other slots will typically go to the teams playing those 4. Sure, there will be other matchups in those slots on the ACC channel from time to time, but again, other than the preferred time slot, what does that really gain a team? It's still a game on a lower tier channel that few outside of die hard fans is going to tune in to, therefore, playing at 7:00 PM on the ACC channel does little to build our brand.

Ultimately, the ACC Network isn't about increasing the viewership of ACC Football, but rather it was pushed in order to milk more money from the networks in negotiations and royalties. It has accomplished its main goal.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Yes, The ESPNs are pay channels, but they are on the basic cable packages of most providers. As I have stated, the ACC channel will really change little. As has also been stated, most games are "televised" when you include streaming sites, so a few of those "streamed" games will move to a lower tier cable channel (ACC Network). There are no provisions to force ESPN to put a "fair" distribution of teams on its premium channels (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2) and unless GT magically starts bringing in tons more viewers, then we won't routinely get those games, unless we're playing a major opponent. So yes, those 3, plus VT, will get the bulk of the prime time slots on the main channels, and most of them on the ACC network as well. The other slots will typically go to the teams playing those 4. Sure, there will be other matchups in those slots on the ACC channel from time to time, but again, other than the preferred time slot, what does that really gain a team? It's still a game on a lower tier channel that few outside of die hard fans is going to tune in to, therefore, playing at 7:00 PM on the ACC channel does little to build our brand.

Ultimately, the ACC Network isn't about increasing the viewership of ACC Football, but rather it was pushed in order to milk more money from the networks in negotiations and royalties. It has accomplished its main goal.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lower tier" channel. If the ACC network will not be included in the "basic cable packages" that most cable subscribers pay for, then the ACC got a crappy deal, and nobody will benefit from it. I doubt that the ACC would agree for basketball games to be carried on some "lower tier" channel. Some of the big ACC games will undoubtedly be picked up by one of the major (non-cable) networks, leaving other games to be spread out throughout the day on the ACC network. I would expect (HOPE) that the distribution of those remaining games on the ACC network to be equitable.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I'm not sure what you mean by "lower tier" channel. If the ACC network will not be included in the "basic cable packages" that most cable subscribers pay for, then the ACC got a crappy deal, and nobody will benefit from it. I doubt that the ACC would agree for basketball games to be carried on some "lower tier" channel. Some of the big ACC games will undoubtedly be picked up by one of the major (non-cable) networks, leaving other games to be spread out throughout the day on the ACC network. I would expect (HOPE) that the distribution of those remaining games on the ACC network to be equitable.

A few things:

1. There are major channels, and then there are secondary channels, and then there are channels that no one goes to unless there is something specific you want to watch on it. For Sports Programming, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and ESPN/ESPN2 are major Channels. FSS and ESPNU are generally second tier channels where the matchups aren't typically as good from a ratings perspective. The SEC/B1G networks and their like are typically still yet a lower tier channel. They will be much further down the dial, and the only people who will really tune in to them are the die hard fans.

2. The ACC deal wasn't that great. Because we were so far behind the curve, we waited too long to go to the table. By the time we negotiated the deal, the other networks were already bleeding subscribers, which forced ESPN to relook at how much money it was willing to pay for the TV rights. We ended off much better off than we were, but we didn't get anywhere near what the other conferences got.

3. Unlike ACC football. ACC basketball is a NATIONALLY relevant brand. TV deal or no, our big teams were in no danger of getting shut out of the prime time games for BBall. Also, the very nature of the beast means most games will fall in similar time slots. And frankly, because it's indoors, no one really complains about mid day BBall games on a Saturday.

4. As for the "other networks" they each have deals with other conferences as well. The only difference you will see is that at least one or two games a week will move from ESPN3 to the ACC network or a regional sports network. (The ACC Network will probably insist on a major matchup from time to time to boost ratings.)

5. Other than the money we get from ESPN, the ACC network will do very little to help GT build its brand. Playing on ABC, Fox or ESPN/ESPN2 will. (CBS or NBC if we happen to playing an SEC opponent or ND for an away game)

Edited to add:

6. Even the SEC/B1G networks aren't on the basic cable packages. That's dictated by the cable providers, though ESPN is likely to provide leverage to ensure that the ACC Network is picked up. Likely by bundling it with other ESPN channels for availability to the provider. (This is why there are so many crappy channels on tv and your bill is so high. The big networks create ancillary networks and bundle them to providers to extract extra subscriber royalties.)

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I agree with everything you said with one proviso. Since not all television viewers have cable packages, I would not automatically include ESPN/ESPN2 as "major channels." Obviously, they are major CABLE channels, but still not everyone has or wants to have or can afford access to those channels. Virtually everyone with an antenna can get the real major channels, but that's it. Fortunately, I can and do get virtually every cable channel offered in the Augusta area, and quite frankly, there are usually games on the cable channels that I find more interesting than those on the major (non-cable) networks. Regarding noon starts for basketball game, many still have the problem with having to drive relatively long distances to get there in time for a noon tipoff, but there are obviously no weather concerns for such games. Personally, when I had season tickets for basketball games, the late starts were worse for me than the early ones, since it meant not getting home till 2AM. That was one of the reasons I quit purchasing basketball season tickets.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I agree with everything you said with one proviso. Since not all television viewers have cable packages, I would not automatically include ESPN/ESPN2 as "major channels." Obviously, they are major CABLE channels, but still not everyone has or wants to have or can afford access to those channels. Virtually everyone with an antenna can get the real major channels, but that's it. Fortunately, I can and do get virtually every cable channel offered in the Augusta area, and quite frankly, there are usually games on the cable channels that I find more interesting than those on the major (non-cable) networks. Regarding noon starts for basketball game, many still have the problem with having to drive relatively long distances to get there in time for a noon tipoff, but there are obviously no weather concerns for such games. Personally, when I had season tickets for basketball games, the late starts were worse for me than the early ones, since it meant not getting home till 2AM. That was one of the reasons I quit purchasing basketball season tickets.

Yeah. I agree with you on the ESPN/ESPN2 issue, but the reality is that most of America either has or has access to those channels for game time viewing. The 4 networks and the 2 major ESPN channels are what are usually on at bars/restaurants to attract customers. Since NFL Monday Night Football moved to ESPN without much of a whimper from the fanbase, I think it's safe to include those two as major channels, especially since ESPN dictates the market and shares TV space with ABC.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Yeah. I agree with you on the ESPN/ESPN2 issue, but the reality is that most of America either has or has access to those channels for game time viewing. The 4 networks and the 2 major ESPN channels are what are usually on at bars/restaurants to attract customers. Since NFL Monday Night Football moved to ESPN without much of a whimper from the fanbase, I think it's safe to include those two as major channels, especially since ESPN dictates the market and shares TV space with ABC.

Most Americans do have access to those channels, but I have heard a surprising number of people say they do not, and I think that number is growing, for several reasons.

 

[RonJohn]

I'm not sure what you mean by "lower tier" channel. If the ACC network will not be included in the "basic cable packages" that most cable subscribers pay for, then the ACC got a crappy deal, and nobody will benefit from it. I doubt that the ACC would agree for basketball games to be carried on some "lower tier" channel. Some of the big ACC games will undoubtedly be picked up by one of the major (non-cable) networks, leaving other games to be spread out throughout the day on the ACC network. I would expect (HOPE) that the distribution of those remaining games on the ACC network to be equitable.

It is more complicated than that as to the tier. The SEC network is estimated to cost subscribers 74 cents per month on average. Subscribers in the SEC area pay an estimated $1.30 per month and those outside pay something less than 74 cents. The way ESPN works is that they have the contracts with different providers staggered such that no two providers contracts end at the same time. They then tell the providers that in order to get ESPN(the main channel) that most of the other channels must be included for all subscribers. If a provider balks, then they face the loss of ESPN and ESPN2 which would most likely cause the loss of an estimated 40% of that providers subscribers.(Funny how ESPN contracts usually expire around August. Almost like they planned that.) What actually happens is the providers crumble to ESPN's demands and now the ESPN suite of channels cost the average TV subscriber something between $9.50 and $15 per month.

ABC and ESPN usually get the top tier announcers and crews. The ABC prime time games usually have the top rated crew. ESPN2 and then ESPNU channels get the next tier. SEC Network gets the next tier. The online games get the bottom tier crews. I believe that is what @Augusta_Jacket is stating. He is ranking the importance of the channels based the announcers, the production crews, and the viewership. If you watch any of the games on SEC Network, the video production is definitely not on the same level as ABC/ESPN.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

It is more complicated than that as to the tier. The SEC network is estimated to cost subscribers 74 cents per month on average. Subscribers in the SEC area pay an estimated $1.30 per month and those outside pay something less than 74 cents. The way ESPN works is that they have the contracts with different providers staggered such that no two providers contracts end at the same time. They then tell the providers that in order to get ESPN(the main channel) that most of the other channels must be included for all subscribers. If a provider balks, then they face the loss of ESPN and ESPN2 which would most likely cause the loss of an estimated 40% of that providers subscribers.(Funny how ESPN contracts usually expire around August. Almost like they planned that.) What actually happens is the providers crumble to ESPN's demands and now the ESPN suite of channels cost the average TV subscriber something between $9.50 and $15 per month.

ABC and ESPN usually get the top tier announcers and crews. The ABC prime time games usually have the top rated crew. ESPN2 and then ESPNU channels get the next tier. SEC Network gets the next tier. The online games get the bottom tier crews. I believe that is what Augusta_Jacket is stating. He is ranking the importance of the channels based the announcers, the production crews, and the viewership. If you watch any of the games on SEC Network, the video production is definitely not on the same level as ABC/ESPN.

Exactly. You put it a lot more succinctly than me, but it's exactly what I have been saying.

 

[CuseJacket]

 

[herb]

We need different buttons at the bottom, as that is a good post, but I definitely don’t like it

 

[Milwaukee]

I found this very interesting: in 2015 coming off our monster 14 season guess how many noon kickoffs we had at Bobby Dodd? One. And that one was COFH after ESPN optioned us to that slot because of our season of suckage. Had we not stunk it up we most likely wouldn't have had a home noon game for the entire season. For the crowd that says winning will change this and get us better time slots look to be spot on. Fun facts.

Edit: 2 games, Pittsburgh was 12:30. Still very fun facts.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

The way GT is playing all of their games are likely to be noon kickoffs for new next few years

 

[stech81]

The way GT is playing all of their games are likely to be noon kickoffs for new next few years

I'm hearing games next year will start at 5 am , this will make the people who want to play under the lights happy . It will also make the people who think noon games are too hot happy. And it will make the Hill happy because students can come to the games and still have all day to study. And last for us drunks we can drink all night.