Official word on FOX Sports 1?

[osu1991]

I would say there is some form of a sporting event on one the OTA channels every weekend. Whether it be football, golf, hockey, tennis, basketball, baseball, soccer, racing, extreme, swimming, olympics related........ The list goes on.

True, but the NFL is the only sport where you are going to get 90% or more of your local team games OTA with just 1 or 2 games going to espn or nfl net. I watch the OTA games every weekend, but I rarely watch Monday or Thursday night games anymore unless it's just 1 or 2 teams I like to watch. Its always in the wording with these numbers. I don't think 43% watch sports regularly, but I do think 43% watch big events and not just the superbowl, or the world series, but if you have a #1 vs #2 or perhaps 2 undefeated teams will draw in the occasional non regular viewer.

10 yrs ago I would watch a lot of everything, now I couldn't tell you who was leading nascar in points or who won last weeks race, let alone who was the PGA money leader. I will watch the NFL on Sundays and Big 12 games on Saturday, but other than that, it is hit or miss to what I watch. A CFL game here and there (usually online), some softball games during the WCWS and the PGA major events are about it.

 

[Scherrman]

How much sports people watch is not really the deal here though. What does matter is the percentage of people who need pay TV in order to watch some form of sports. I think the 43% is pretty accurate. Maybe not all of those people watch sports every week but when a big game is on they want the ability to watch it and are not willing to give it up.

 

[osu1991]

We will have to disagree, I don't think the number is that high, although I don't think it is 4% either. Doesn't matter what we think anyway, consumers will come out on the losing end anyway. With its rising costs, I think sports should be available in a separate tier from general programming. I think somewhere in the 70 to 80% range of people would forgo sports channels most of the year.

Our RSN hasn't been watched since college football season coverage ended last year and espn, speed, cbssn, nbcsn were not turned on in our house since February, until the WCWS in June and then it was off again until the CFL games started a few weeks ago. The only sports on in my sisters house is football, my step sisters and brother in law watch Nascar but just the Sprint cup races, my other step sisters family don't watch sports and my mom is not a tv sports fans, my dad and step mom watch the NFL and Sprint Cup races and that is it. We are big sports fans, but not to the point of watching a 150 MLB games on tv or 24/7 coverage of cycling around France etc. Half the Nascar races are on OTA, so they would not need a subscription channel but a few months of the year to watch races.

I think in general very few people would want or need the sports channels year round. I think for most people it is a seasonal convenience and not a year round requirement. My opinions are the costs of these channels and the fragmentation of every team, league and conference wanting their own channel, has reached a point that the convenience for most consumers no longer outweigh the costs.

 

[Scherrman]

I would actually like to see a sports package too but the main package of channels better be dirt cheap otherwise my bill is just going to get higher yet. I can still picture people moaning about a sports package saying how they only want two of the sports channels but have to pay for the entire package. You can never satisfy everyone.

 

[fhsucade07]

I would actually like to see a sports package too but the main package of channels better be dirt cheap otherwise my bill is just going to get higher yet. I can still picture people moaning about a sports package saying how they only want two of the sports channels but have to pay for the entire package. You can never satisfy everyone.

Agree 100%. Even if they do a sports "a la carte" or "specialty" package, my fear is they would probably still require one of the higher packages to get it.

 

[odbrv]

ESPN's first season ( 2006 )of MNF produced a 9.9 rating, appearing in 9.1 million households and featuring 12.3 million viewers per game. By comparison, the average audience for MNF on ABC in 2003 was 16.8 million. However, while ABC lost hundreds of millions on MNF, ESPN has turned a profit. It just shows that the fees cable sports channels get are more than the major OTA networks get. Sunday night football ( 21 million viewers) on NBC gets better rattings than ESPN's Monday night football. However, it must charge advertisers much higher rates than ESPN due to lower per customer cable fees. So those of us who do like some sports on TV better hope cable networks like FOX1 survive. If they continue to lose money the Major OTA Networks have shown they are very willing to move sports to their cable stations. We might see Sunday night football moving to the NBCSN in the future.

 

[osu1991]

That just shows they were overpaying for the OTA rights. More people were willing to watch but not at the cost of subscription tv.

Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[psychotrope]

We will have to disagree, I don't think the number is that high, although I don't think it is 4% either. Doesn't matter what we think anyway, consumers will come out on the losing end anyway. With its rising costs, I think sports should be available in a separate tier from general programming. I think somewhere in the 70 to 80% range of people would forgo sports channels most of the year.

Our RSN hasn't been watched since college football season coverage ended last year and espn, speed, cbssn, nbcsn were not turned on in our house since February, until the WCWS in June and then it was off again until the CFL games started a few weeks ago. The only sports on in my sisters house is football, my step sisters and brother in law watch Nascar but just the Sprint cup races, my other step sisters family don't watch sports and my mom is not a tv sports fans, my dad and step mom watch the NFL and Sprint Cup races and that is it. We are big sports fans, but not to the point of watching a 150 MLB games on tv or 24/7 coverage of cycling around France etc. Half the Nascar races are on OTA, so they would not need a subscription channel but a few months of the year to watch races.

I think in general very few people would want or need the sports channels year round. I think for most people it is a seasonal convenience and not a year round requirement. My opinions are the costs of these channels and the fragmentation of every team, league and conference wanting their own channel, has reached a point that the convenience for most consumers no longer outweigh the costs.

I guess I'm kind of at a different end of the spectrum than a lot of people on this forum. I don't consider myself a sports nut, but about 95% of the programming I watch on Dish, and 100% of the programming I watch live or even same-day (or even same-week for that matter) is sports. When it's not football season, I don't watch very much ESPN (of family of networks), even though they're the big dog, so it's not just a matter of watching SportsCenter every night. It's mostly a matter of lifestyle limitations. With my young kids in the house and the reading I've done on how background noise can effect them, I need programming that can be watched in the presence of kids (not inappropriate/scary images) and with the sound off. That's kind of limiting as far as shows and movies go. But it works for sports. I'd happily pay for a sports package based on all the sports channels as mentioned in this discussion. Its' all of those non-sports channels that I have almost no use for. Amazing how so many of us can be so different in which channels we find useful and yet share the same enthusiasm for pay tv service. Think how boring the world would be if we all just liked the same stuff.

 

[osu1991]

I guess I'm kind of at a different end of the spectrum than a lot of people on this forum. I don't consider myself a sports nut, but about 95% of the programming I watch on Dish, and 100% of the programming I watch live or even same-day (or even same-week for that matter) is sports. When it's not football season, I don't watch very much ESPN (of family of networks), even though they're the big dog, so it's not just a matter of watching SportsCenter every night. It's mostly a matter of lifestyle limitations. With my young kids in the house and the reading I've done on how background noise can effect them, I need programming that can be watched in the presence of kids (not inappropriate/scary images) and with the sound off. That's kind of limiting as far as shows and movies go. But it works for sports. I'd happily pay for a sports package based on all the sports channels as mentioned in this discussion. Its' all of those non-sports channels that I have almost no use for. Amazing how so many of us can be so different in which channels we find useful and yet share the same enthusiasm for pay tv service. Think how boring the world would be if we all just liked the same stuff.

I didn't say I have a use for the other junk being televised nowadays either.

The only reality type shows we watch are The Voice, DWTS, and The Amazing Race. Don't care for the reality drama of which housewive has had the most plastic surgery, or which redneck can do the dumbest thing without losing an appendage. Don't car for the graphic crime dramas either. See enough violence on the news already.

Football season gets me for tv sports and occasionally some other sports, that I could live without or get by just with what is OTA. How to shows, science fiction or things relating to history are mainly what we watch. I get most of my tv viewing online via vpns from other countries now.

I think sports should be in a separate package, one for people that don't watch and two because I don't like paying for it when I only use it 4 maybe 5 months of the year.

 

[fhsucade07]

My Dad has Welcome Pack with DISH but went through the small local cable company to get the digital sports tier for $13 / month (including receiver fee). They told him the other day they expected to carry Fox Sports 1 as soon as it changed over from SPEED (already in the package). I like the idea of the sports package though it does not include the ESPN family of networks. Has all four of the league channels, CBS Sports, Big Ten, PAC-12, SPEED, MAVTV and WFN. It does not include the RSN.

 

[Tampa8]

I guess I'm kind of at a different end of the spectrum than a lot of people on this forum. I don't consider myself a sports nut, but about 95% of the programming I watch on Dish, and 100% of the programming I watch live or even same-day (or even same-week for that matter) is sports.

First step is to admit it. That's probably the very definition of a "Sports Nut." (I use that term not in a negative way - I could be called a movie nut perhaps) You can't say you're not a sports nut and then say 95% of everything you watch is sports.

 

[osu1991]

I can say 95% of the sports that I do watch is football.

 

[fhsucade07]

I can say 95% of the sports that I do watch is football.

Very easily 95% for me.

 

[fbara]

I know for sure that 90% of the sports I watch is made up of 50% baseball, 50% football, and 50% basketball.

 

[jbrelish]

Lets see,sports I watch.
NFL....Steelers games that are on local channel. I do not watch Monday Night Football,at all.
NBA....I watch zero NBA. Interest died after DR J retired. Came back alittle with Jordan,now none.
NHL....Never any interest
MLB....Stopped watching about 20 years ago.
Golf....Not interested.
Soccer...Not interested.
Nascar.....watch the Sprint Cup only.
Tennis....Not interested.
Olympics....its getting too political for my taste.So for London I watched maybe 3 hours total. The opening killed my interest.
Billards...if I am bored out of my mind with my 300 plus channels and want something different.
Bowling...last watched in early 70's.
Boxing...haven't seen a current match in decades. Do watch historical matches once and a while.
College sports....stopped all college sports after Penn State debacle. Proved to me the NCAA is as dumb as a fence post.

 

[Scherrman]

I guess I'm kind of at a different end of the spectrum than a lot of people on this forum. I don't consider myself a sports nut, but about 95% of the programming I watch on Dish, and 100% of the programming I watch live or even same-day (or even same-week for that matter) is sports. When it's not football season, I don't watch very much ESPN (of family of networks), even though they're the big dog, so it's not just a matter of watching SportsCenter every night. It's mostly a matter of lifestyle limitations. With my young kids in the house and the reading I've done on how background noise can effect them, I need programming that can be watched in the presence of kids (not inappropriate/scary images) and with the sound off. That's kind of limiting as far as shows and movies go. But it works for sports. I'd happily pay for a sports package based on all the sports channels as mentioned in this discussion. Its' all of those non-sports channels that I have almost no use for. Amazing how so many of us can be so different in which channels we find useful and yet share the same enthusiasm for pay tv service. Think how boring the world would be if we all just liked the same stuff.

This is the reason why I do not see any a la carte of other special packages happening soon. The only way to satisfy everyone's needs with channel selection and an affordable price is to have it in packages the way it is now.

There are plenty of people out the that want sports, news, cartoons and movies all at an affordable price. The only way to do that is to bundle it all together. The best option I have heard so far is to just offer the option between what we have now and a la carte. You can either have the few channels you want and maybe save $20 or you can get hundreds of channels and pay the prices offered now.

 

[dare2be]

The best option I have heard so far is to just offer the option between what we have now and a la carte. You can either have the few channels you want and maybe save $20 or you can get hundreds of channels and pay the prices offered now.

That is all we ask.

 

[gadgtfreek]

The problem is, the money required to spend on sports contracts dictates that channels like ESPN be placed in ALL your packages. This aint gonna stop.

 

[dare2be]

That's why I don't welcome this new channel at all. Competition with ESPN? That just mean exclusive TV rights contracts will be bid even higher. In this case, competition means higher prices, not lower.

 

[fhsucade07]

And I can't see anyones bills coming down even if the sports channels were placed in a different package. They may remain steady but someone like Viacom would end up coming along with their "demands".