Is There Anybody Alive Out There?

Movin' out

2009-05-22T13:53:00.002-04:00

I created my own website, sort of Me 2.0 thing, and will begin to blog more regularly this summer at that site... here is the link: http://www.stevedittmore.com Please see the Blog tab at the top.

Thanks...

"You get your kicks from just driving me down"

2008-12-11T15:26:00.006-05:00

In the middle of finals this week, but could not help but make a comment regarding Rep. Joe Barton of Texas and his attempt to squash the BCS. I wrote earlier that I felt the new ESPN-BCS deal would not get past Congress because it effectively siphoned something which had previously been available on free TV to pay TV (I know, the overwhelming majority of the country get ESPN).

Now Barton is going after the BCS as a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

“The legislation we are introducing today will prohibit the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a post-season game as a ‘national championship’ football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice, and provides the FTC with civil penalty authority."

As Rick Chandler of Deadspin articulately said,

"And so the BCS as we know it is doomed, of course. It's caught in a perfect storm, with rabid Texas Republicans on one side, popular President-elects on the other, and the thorniest nemesis of them all, ESPN, waiting in the wings. The Worldwide Leader signed a four-year commitment to broadcast four BCS games beginning in 2011. So if you think the current system will still be alive then, keep dreaming."

To those who thought Congress had better things to do than mess with sports, you forgot one thing. Politicians pander to their constituents. And, when their constituents are disgruntled, they make loud noises.

I have a $100 bill on the table saying that no way does the BCS exist in its current format and broadcast exclusively on ESPN come 2011. Anyone want in?

Podcast with Detroit Lions PR

2008-11-21T23:15:00.002-05:00

I take a break from my usual Springsteen song lyric titles because it is late and I wanted to get this posted quickly.

Here is a link to "On The Record" with Eric Schwartzman. He regularly posts podcasts with PR executives. Today's post is with Detroit Lions PR person Tim Pendell. Download it and give a listen. It's like getting a 21-minute guest lecture from a PR professional.

I'm traveling next week and then have one week plus two days of class left, which means lots of grading. So, I may continue to be dark for a while.

"They blew up the chicken man in Philly last night"

2008-11-14T12:53:00.005-05:00

I'm probably the only one who found this little note interesting. According to Linda Haugsted of Multichannel News yesterday, Verizon may soon provide head -to-head competition with Comcast in the cable company's hometown of Philadelphia.
Why is this interesting? Here are some fun facts:

1) Comcast enjoys a 70% market share in Philadelphia, where it owns and operates Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, home to the Phillies, 76ers and Flyers (the latter two are also owned by Comcast, along with the Wachovia Center where those teams play). This according to testimony submitted by David Fawcett, Executive Vice President at DirecTV, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Nov. 14, 2006.

2) According to a July 21, 2006 report by the FCC, what is now termed the "Adelphia Order," "the percentage of television households that subscribe to DBS service in Philadelphia is 40% below what would otherwise be expected given the characteristics of the market and the cable operators in the DMA" (para. 149).

3) Consider this exchange between Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and David Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast, during the Dec. 7, 2006 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. (Note the blatant suck up by Sen. Specter to Cohen when he "commends" the company for making its channel available to Verizon. Amazing what $110,000 buys a corporation).

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Cooper, I will come to you in just a minute because I know you want to comment. But I want to follow up in a couple of regards with Mr. Cohen before moving on. Comcast has made available to Verizon Philadelphia SportsNet, correct?
Mr. COHEN. That is correct.
Chairman SPECTER. Why did you do that on a voluntary basis?
Mr. COHEN. I think it is a question of looking at our business and looking at the business model, and we have consistently said in testimony before this Congress—
Chairman SPECTER. I commend you for doing it. I think it is very good because it helps the consumers. They do not have to make a choice based on Philadelphia SportsNet. But there is a competitive disadvantage to you to give that to Verizon, a competitor.
Mr. COHEN. That is correct.
Chairman SPECTER. And that obviously prompts the question as to why you did it.
Mr. COHEN. We made an assessment based on the overall balance of the expected size and scope of that competitor for reasons that we can discuss in another hearing. We do not believe Verizon is, for example, going to be providing service in the city of
Philadelphia anytime in the near future because their business model is not to roll out their service in the city.
Chairman SPECTER. Do you think there are really not going to be real competitors to Comcast?
Mr. COHEN. No, they are going to be a competitor in the Philadelphia suburbs and in South Jersey and in wealthier communities surrounding the city of Philadelphia, but not in the city of Philadelphia per se. But, more importantly, we—
Chairman SPECTER. But Comcast relies upon the areas beyond the city of Philadelphia very heavily.
Mr. COHEN. That is correct. We have a number of ways in which we competitively differentiate ourselves from our competitors. Comcast SportsNet in Philadelphia is one of those methods. It is not the exclusive method. The bottom line here is that we have consistently represented in Congress and in front of the FCC that it is not our intention to abuse the terrestrial exemption—by the way, it is an exemption, not a loophole, that we would make the content available to wireline, facilities-based competitors, and that we do so in all of our markets. And giving access to Comcast SportsNet to Verizon was consistent with that position that we have taken.

Whoops! It looks like Verizon is serious about competing with Comcast in the city of Philadelphia.

Given the Phillies World Series title, content on Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia will likely be in even greater demand in 2009. Would Comcast renege on its Congressional testimony and no longer make Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia available to Verizon in order to preserve its ridiculously high 70% market share?

Oh, yeah. One other thing. Verizon FiOS carries the NFL Network.

Photo lifted from here.

"Hey Eddie, can you lend me a few bucks"

2008-11-12T23:40:00.006-05:00

I was all set to publish my post on the NFL Network-Big Cable battle, but will save it for another time. The rumored BCS to ESPN for $125 million annually thing got me thinking. My initial reaction is that it won't past the Congressional sniff test.

Part of my research on the NFL Network has included re-reading the transcripts of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings from 2006. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) stated repeatedly in those hearings his concern about the NFL's migration toward a pay television model.

The NFL's counter-argument is that the league makes more of its content available over free television than any other professional sport, including ALL of its playoffs games. Most markets receive 3 or 4 games on FOX, CBS, and NBC each Sunday for 17 weeks, plus two Thanksgiving Day games. Both the NBA and MLB place championship series on cable. A BCS-on-ESPN-only model would not include any free distribution.

So far, the NFL's argument seems to be holding its own. Sen. Specter promised legislation to revoke the NFL's antitrust exemption granted under the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act during the 2006 hearings, but no legislation has been introduced during the current 110th Congress.

I can't see a situation where Sen. Specter allows the commissioners of the six BCS conferences to move a BCS Bowl game between Penn State (because the Senator loves all Pennsylvania sports) and, say, Texas to ESPN only. Imagine what the Penn State fans in Johnstown who don't subscribe to cable will do? First, they cannot watch the Steelers, and now no Joe Pa? This is why I don't think the BCS to ESPN thing will work, at least not without conditions.

Thus far, only Michael Hiestand of USA Today has acknowledged that Congress may play a role in these negotiations. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that the NCAA violated antitrust law when it attempted to restrict the output of college football telecasts (NCAA v. Board of Regents, 1984) and spawned the old College Football Association, sort of precursor to the BCS. (I will try to write more about this decision when I get some more time, probably next week).

I think all of Congress would welcome some catalyst to bring major college athletics to Washington, D.C. for hearings. There is so much to discuss. The NCAA and its tax exempt status? I'd like to hear that conversation. Lack of a football playoff system (the President-elect's personal favorite)? Exclusive programming for Big Ten Network and the Mtn.? (Remember Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) made noise in the summer of 2007 about how fans of the Blue would not be able to watch the Wolverines. Don't hear him saying that this year.) All of those could be fertile grounds for hauling Myles Brand to D.C.

Do I know with absolute certainty that this will happen? Of course not. But based on my understanding of what sort of issues ruffle politicians feathers, I certainly think it is a good possibility.

Logo lifted from fangsbites.com.

UPDATE (12:00 CST): Broken links are fixed.

More to come...

2008-11-11T12:45:00.003-05:00

I am working on a longer post regarding the NFL Network-Big Cable debate which I hope to have complete no later than Wednesday night. In the meantime, NFLN president Steve Bornstein is taking his campaign directly to the media. Thanks to Neil Best of Watchdog (Newsday) and Ken Fang of Fang's Bites for posting the entire text.

Here it is...

See you tomorrow.

"Spinnin' 'round a dead dial"

2008-11-06T09:13:00.009-05:00

I am going to try a new feature each Friday. I hope to provide links to stories relating to issues I have written about recently. This week includes stories about the Big Cable-NFL Network ongoing dispute and the FCC's white spaces decision. I remain somewhat surprised by the lack of attention in the sport media world about the white space issue. I guess the NFL Network discussion dwarfs it.

Richard Sandomir of the New York times on the Big Cable-NFL Network battle. Sandomir does draw attention to the territory issue raised by Sen. Specter, something which most mainstream media did not pick up on in the initial volley of stories. Expect some more pressure from Sen. Specter next week when the game is Jets-Patriots.

Tom Hoffrath of the LA Daily News on the same debate. Interesting quotes from NFL Network COO Kim Williams, as well as a reference to the "misguided" letter from Sen. Specter, but still no discussion of what may become the larger issue - NFL territories.

Mike Reynolds of the Multichannel News on "optimism" for the NFL Network.

Related story from Matthew Futterman of the Wall Street Journal on Sprint's ability to deliver last night's Denver-Cleveland game on mobile phones. My favorite quote? "Mitigating churn."

New York Times coverage of the FCC's decision to permit white space usage.

Michelle Ferrier of the Poynter Institute on the FCC's white space decision.

Drew Clark's blog has additional interesting links on the white space debate, though none of these have direct mentions of impact (real or perceived) on sports broadcasting. Although this post by Matthew Lasar at ars technica does show the possible impact of white space usage using a baseball player.

(H/T to Fang's Bites and Sports Media Journal for posting many of these links).

"So I hopped into town for a satellite dish"

2008-11-05T11:06:00.006-05:00

Over the last two years, I have read about, written, and researched the central issues in the debate between Big Cable and the NFL Network at some length. I have multiple ongoing research projects into the legal arguments and message delivery on both sides of the case.

So, it is with a fair amount of insight, that, on the eve of the scintillating Denver-Cleveland NFL game on Nov. 6, I break down the text of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and his colleagues letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell as well as the text of Goodell's response (H/T to Fang's Bites for forwarding).

As I wrote last week, Specter is moving the debate from Big Cable v. NFL Network to how the NFL defines its home markets. To understand this, we turn to Quirk and Fort in their book "Hard Ball: The Abuse of Power in Pro Team Sports."

"At the very heart of the business structure of a sports league is the exclusive territorial franchise that is assigned to the owner of each member team in the league. The league franchise is a grant of a local monopoly within the league to the team owning the franchise. The specifics differ from league to league. In the NFL, for example, a team's is that contained within a seventh-five-mile radius of the team's home field." (p. 118)

The intent of this is to give the home team the ability to develop fan loyalty within their territories. The NFL guarantees that each team's game will be broadcast on free-to-air television in that team's territory (provided home games are sold out 72 hours prior to game time - the "Blackout Rule").

Specter and his colleagues are "troubled by how narrowly the NFL is interpreting this policy." They point to New Mexico, which the NFL does not consider to be any home market, and therefore, would not receive Thursday's game on free-to-air television. They argue the policy "leaves behind NFL fans across the country simply because the live outside cities to which the NFL has granted franchises." Except that fans in New Mexico CAN get the NFL Network by subscribing to a satellite provider or if their local monopoly cable provider carries the network.

Goodell's response begins with a tone of annoyance. "As you undoubtedly recall, my office exchanged similar correspondence with you the last three years regarding NFL Network distribution of games…" Don't forget, Specter also ticked off the NFL when he investigated the Patriots use of videotaping devices last year.

Goodell never directly addresses Specter's concern about the narrow definition of territories which the NFL employs. Instead, he directs his context back to the initial argument of Big Cable v. NFL Network. He notes the FCC, the independent governmental agency charged with regulating "interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable," recently ruled in favor of the NFL Network and another RSN, Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, in cases of discrimination by Big Cable providers Comcast and Time Warner, respectively.

It is imperative to this debate to remember that Comcast is a major campaign contributor to Specter. According to OpenSecrets.org, Comcast contributed $109,100 to Specter between 2003-2008. And it's also imperative to remember that Comcast bid in excess of $300 million per year for the rights to the package of games the NFL is presently showcasing on its own network. This helps explain why the NFL registered its own political action committee, Gridiron, this past May.

Goodell also points to the FCC's most recent review of NFL television policies (1994 migration study) in which the FCC stated "we are not, therefore, concerned at this time that professional football is migrating away from free television to subscription services." You can find the complete Sports Programming Migration Final Report here, but I am not sure how many of you really want to read the whole thing as I have done. It's not quite like reading a Grisham novel.

Where do we go from here? Likely, nowhere. Unlike last year when the NFL Network lucked into a Green Bay-Dallas match up of two 10-1 teams and a New England-NY Giants match up of a team seeking to go 16-0, this year's NFL Network schedule has some good games, but nothing like last year. As of today, only three games feature two teams which currently have records above .500.

Nov. 6 - DEN (4-4) at CLE (3-5)
Nov. 13 - NYJ (5-3) at NE (5-3). Decent match up.
Nov. 20 CIN (1-8) at PIT (6-2)
Nov. 27 - ARI (5-3) at PHI (5-3). This is Thanksgiving night, and could be an important game.
Dec. 4 - OAK (2-6) at SD (3-5). Ugh.
Dec. 11 - NO (4-4) at CHI (5-3)
Dec. 18 - IND (4-4) at JAX (3-5)
Dec. 20 - BAL (5-3) at DAL (5-4). This also could be an important game.

Is Congress ready to break the monopoly power of professional team sports over a few random mid-season NFL games? Or, is Congress ready to break the gate-keeping monopoly power of Big Cable? Elected officials are positioning consumers as victims, perhaps with direction from influential lobbyists, in a case of a monopoly v. a monopoly.

Cartoon copyright by Chip Bok, Akron Beacon-Journal. Originally published Nov. 29, 2007.

"Movin' one step up and two steps back"

2008-11-05T09:15:00.006-05:00

Lost in the shuffle of yesterday's news was the FCC's decision to approve the use of "white spaces" in the broadcast spectrum. Please see my previous post on how "white spaces" work.

Those for this measure included public interest groups, Google, Microsoft, and other businesses interested in competing with the major wireless providers (AT&T, Verizon, etc.). In other words, the consumer wins begins she is afforded more competition in the marketplace, which usually leads to improved service and lower prices.

Those against the measure broadcasters, entertainers, and preachers who fear their wireless microphones will be knocked out by competition from these new approved devices (think of the Google phone).

While the FCC was approving consumer choice in one area, it reduced consumer choice in another by approving the merger between Verizon and Alltel, creating the "nation's largest cellphone provider" (at least until AT&T merges with T-Mobile). Verizon moves ahead of AT&T, which, of course, previously merged with Cingular and then bought Cellular One.

So these new white space providers will wind up competing with 2 or 3 really big, really fast providers in the spectrum, instead of 5 or 6. The bigger and faster these vehicles drive on the spectrum highway, the harder it will be for white space providers to have an impact.

Sigh.

"Radio relay towers won't you lead me to my baby"

2008-11-03T16:41:00.007-05:00

Tomorrow (Nov. 4) is an important day in Washington, D.C. for more than the obvious reason. Chairman Kevin Martin and the rest of the Federal Communications Commission will consider allowing transmission on "white spaces" in the broadcast spectrum at its open meeting. The commission's decision could have a profound impact on the business of sports broadcasting.

Huh, you say? Okay, let's back up.

The FCC is given the power, by law, to determine how radio frequencies between 9 kHz and 400 GHz are licensed and used. Here is a colorful and completely confusing map of U.S. frequency allocations.

When the FCC mandated that all over-the-air broadcast networks convert to a digital signal in February 2009, it opened up a huge chunk of the spectrum for usage. The FCC auctioned these rights this past March, generating nearly $20 billion. Shortly thereafter Google informed the FCC of its intent to provide mobile broadband services in the TV "white space" without impacting TV broadcasts. Good overview here from Chris Wilson of Slate.com.

How does this work? Imagine driving down an 11-lane highway. Six lanes are filled with big SUVs using lots of frequencies (such as TV networks). Because these are the biggest, they can drive the fastest and take up the most space. Other lanes are filled with smaller vehicles using radio frequencies, such as garage door openers, cell phones, wireless routers, cordless telephones, walkie-talkies, etc. All of these devices compete for space and speed on this highway without, hopefully, interfering with one another. If the highway becomes too packed with users, speeds slow down or, worse, the users knock each other out.

When the FCC auctioned several of these lanes last March, the purchasers (Verizon, AT&T, etc.) were looking to increase their speed on the highway, which would provide them faster service for wireless content (read: streaming video to your phone).

Just as a driver would want to do on the interstate, a big network wants some buffer between it and the next user on the highway. Google wants to use that buffer, the "white space," for personal/portable devices (like its phone). This is where sports broadcasters become concerned.

Jeff Willis, coordinating technical manager of event operations for ESPN, told Glen Dickson of Broadcasting & Cable of the problems the network encountered when it tested white-space devices during a Monday Night Football game in 2007.

All of the Big Four broadcast networks and the National Association of Broadcasters filed an "emergency request" with the FCC to delay the vote. At the very least, these organizations, and a group of 28 bipartisan members of Congress, want to open the white spaces report to public comment.

What could be the impact of the FCC's vote? (and I emphasize could because the FCC says it is no problem while others contend it is) Sideline reporters at sports events might have their microphones go out mid-interview (although this might not be bad). Musicians might not be able to prance around the stage during a concert with a wireless microphone. Opera singers may have to stand at microphones. Chase Utley might not be mic'd up during the World Series. Football coaches might not be able to communicate to their quarterbacks.

But, it may open the door for additional high-speed content to be delivered to your cell phone, negating the need to be tied to a television to watch major sports. NBC already streams Sunday Night Football on the Internet. And, if this means fewer television watchers, could it also mean reduced media rights fees to professional leagues?

I'm torn between thinking this is very forward thinking of Martin and the FCC, to consider the future needs of wireless broadband, and the efficacy of selling every inch of the 11-lane broadcast highway. I guess I'll see what tomorrow brings. Oh, and I'll probably watch some of that election stuff, too.

Photo from newsday.com.

UPDATE: As of 2:10 pm EST on Nov. 4, the FCC meeting still had not begun.

"As the band played Night of the Johnstown Flood"

2008-10-30T17:09:00.003-04:00

Saturday marks the first day of November. And, if it is November, it must be time for the Senate Judiciary Committee to take notice of the NFL. Sure enough, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and other members of the committee did just that Tuesday with his letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell which, as described by Greg Bishop and Lynn Zinser in the New York Times, expressed "continued concern over what they consider the exclusionary nature of showing select games on the NFL Network."

What is new this time is that Sen. Specter is now challenging the NFL's definition of home markets, saying the interpretation is too narrow. Quick history lesson here. In 1961, Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act which effectively allowed the NFL to pool media rights for all of its games, rather than have each individual team market its rights. One of the NFL's principle arguments since the Act's passage was that all games (home and away) would be available on free-to-air television in the team's home market. The home part is subject to the league's 72-hour blackout policy.

So, a Steelers fan in, say, Johnstown (one of the towns identified by Sen. Specter), may not get Steelers games because the NFL does not consider Johnstown as the Steelers market, even though it is only 66.8 miles from Pittsburgh according to Google maps. If true, that does seem silly. Except that every Steelers game so far this year has been broadcast in Johnstown (see The 506.com).

Here is a guess at what Sen. Specter really was saying.

"I see where the Bengals are playing at the Steelers on Thursday night, Nov. 20. I imagine the good folks in Johnstown would be interested in that game, but because it is on the NFL Network, they can't watch. You see, Comcast, one of my major campaign contributors, is the dominant cable provider in Johnstown and Comcast only will carry the NFLN on a digital tier. Comcast is upset with the NFL because it would not sell rights to this late-season package to Comcast in 2006 to the Comcast network now known as Versus. Instead, the NFL wants all Comcast subscribers to pay 70 cents additional to receive the NFL Network. Not all cable subscribers are football fans (though in this case everyone in Johnstown is a football fan, particularly of the Steelers). As a substitute, these Comcast subscribers will be forced to watch Comcast-owned G4, which Comcast acknowledges is 'the fastest growing network on television for 2006.' As we all know, everyone enjoys video games more than they enjoy the NFL."

Reality is this. The FCC ruled earlier this month that Comcast is discriminating against the NFL Network putting the decision in the hands of an administrative law judge. Specter realizes this will not likely end the way Comcast wants, and so he is channeling his inner Wag the Dog and changing the story (likely with some direction from Comcast) from the carriage debate to the market debate. Congress can revoke the Sports Broadcasting Act's privileges, but Specter probably knows that in a lameduck Congress before a new presidential administration, that is highly unlikely.

I get the Johnstown-Steelers argument about market (I don't get the Rapid City, SD-Broncos argument. I think many NFL fans in the Dakotas are Vikings fans). I was troubled by the number of senators who signed the letter, until I read more closely…

Two from Rhode Island, one from Conn., and two from Vermont, where lots of Patriots fans might live, but are not in the Patriots market. Two from Colo., one from N.M., one from S.D. and two from Wyoming, where some Broncos fans might live, but are not all in the Broncos market. One from Illinois because, well, apparently the good folks in Edwardsville like the Bears better than the Rams (but then again, who doesn't these days).

All of those states were singled out in the letter as NFL black holes where no team is the home team, but fans exist in those markets. In one sense, this letter undermines the whole argument from Comcast which has been to claim not everyone is a football fan and, therefore, should not be forced to pay for a channel it does not want. The letter implies people are fans of football, especially those who live outside the NFL-defined market. Comcast cannot have it both ways.

Heck, I live in Arkansas and am a fan of Steelers and the Chiefs because former students of mine play for those teams. That's why I have Directv. I can watch whatever I want. Buck up Johnstown and switch to satellite. More choices. Less money. Better customer service.

Photo from boston.com.

"Man came by to hook up my cable TV. We settled in for the night, my baby and me"

2008-10-28T11:51:00.003-04:00

I posted this earlier today at the Journal of Sports Media blog.

Continuing on Brad's theme of ratings problems for FOX and the World Series, I stumbled across this innocuous little post on The Big Lead regarding what Colin Cowherd said on ESPN. Here's the quote:

“Baseball fans better pray the Rays win tonight, or FOX could bail on them. [Network TV channels] and NBC all bailed on baseball. Too expensive. You might see the World Series on TBS. Great sport, poorly run. Can you imagine the AFC Championship ending at 1:45 in the morning? If you don’t think it [Ed. ratings?] matters, go ask hockey.”

While I don't particularly like Cowherd, he raises an interesting point regarding baseball and network television. Costs are up, ratings are down, advertisers are flat. Is FOX better served focusing on the NFL and the BCS?

Keep in mind, MLB starts its own network on Jan. 1, 2009. I suppose it is possible at some point down the line we could see baseball only on cable. Do we need to prepare another chapter for the excellent book featured on the right?

Photo from the University of Nebraska press website.

"We went back inside, sat down. Had a few drinks..."

2008-10-27T10:07:00.006-04:00

On Saturday, my local paper, The Morning News, had an interesting article regarding the impact of Razorback football games on Dickson Street, the popular bar/restaurant drag here in Fayetteville. It was certainly a glowing case for the importance of SEC football in this small community and I certainly enjoy Saturday afternoons in the fall as much as the next person, but...

The article, and its quotes from bar owners, imply that were the Razorbacks not playing, the bars would have little business. That just is not true. In fact, there are probably a number of people who would have gone out to eat this past Saturday on Dickson Street, but chose not to because of the crowds. Instead, they may have patronized another restaurant in another city. That represents lost income to those bar owners.

In addition, the article presumes that spending in bars and restaurants on Dickson Street only occurs because of the Razorbacks. That just is not true. In fact, some of the people (students especially) would likely have consumed a beer or two in the bars on Dickson Street whether the Razorbacks played or not. Therefore, this spending is not "new". In fact, it might be a reallocation from monies which would have been spent elsewhere like, say, a movie theater. So while the business on Dickson Street benefit, other local businesses suffer when the Hogs play.

Clearly, the Hogs impact local businesses, however, I think the magnitude of this impact was overstated in the article.

Photo from The Morning News website.

The Swamps of Jersey Yankees???

2008-10-24T14:50:00.004-04:00

When Walter O'Malley was attempting to leverage a new stadium from Brooklyn in the 1950s, the Dodgers scheduled several regular season games at Roosevelt Stadium in Jersey City. Attendance was miserable and did nothing to help convince the powers in Brooklyn to offer O'Malley anything better than the future site of Shea Stadium, er, Citi Field. Two excellent books, The Dodgers Move West and The Last Good Season, document this.

Is it possible the New York Yankees were prepared to employ the same strategy nearly 50 years later? Speaking before the U.S. House of Representatives Domestic Policy Subcomittee today, Yankees president Randy Levine testified that had a sweetheart PILOTs financing deal NOT been put in place, "the Yankees regrettably would have have been forced to leave the Bronx."

This is troubling on a number of fronts. 1) Does anyone really think the Yankees would have left New York (admittedly, Levine says they would have left the Bronx, not the city/state)? 2) Why, when the Dow is down another 200+ points and we are 10 days from a major election, are our elected officials examining public financing of a sports facility? (oh, wait, I am opposed to public funding of facilities. Go on with your bad self, Dennis Kucinich)

I'm sure if my good friend John knew about this, he would have lobbied hard to build a stadium in his new home town, Charlotte. Can you imagine? People with Yankees car magnets next to their Rebel flags?

H/T to Dennis Coates at The Sports Economist for posting this first.

Fox and the World Series

2008-10-23T13:03:00.005-04:00

This was cross-posted at the Journal of Sports Media blog...

I thought the opening to last night's World Series on Fox was pretty good. I'm not sold on the mix of politics with sports (Sens. Obama and McCain alternated reading historical quotes about baseball's significance), but I thought it was well done. Some of the "morning after" comments in the blogosphere got me thinking.

Neil Best of Newsday notes the Series is a between two "swing states"Awful Announcing got goosebumps
What struck me was the intentional (or unintentional) attempt by Fox to equate today's economic/political situation in the United States to some of the most significant points in our nation's history - the Civil War, the Depression, Pearl Harbor, MLK's march on Washington, and 9-11.

Will we look back on the current situation 20 years from now and rank it along with the ones Fox did? Given the real or perceived political orientation of Fox News, was Fox Sports (or more correctly, News Corp.) setting an agenda with this?

What does anyone else think about this confluence of sport, politics and media?

My City of Ruins

2008-09-24T14:04:00.005-04:00

Apparently, there is some controversy about the spontaneity of Paternoville in State College, Pa. The new coordination committee for the tent city outside Beaver Stadium has made the time-honored tradition of camping in a parking lot bureaucratic.

What is more interesting is the new structure, with formal sets of rules and regulations, is sanctioned by Penn State University, creating a legitimate student club whose sole purpose is to formalize the process of skipping class. Riiiight. (NY Times The Quad)

Photo credit: Centre Daily Times via the Paternoville Coordination Committee homepage

A spin around a dead dial...

2008-09-23T15:57:00.003-04:00

Interesting things I have read in the past few days off my Google Reader...

Bud Selig took out a full page ad in the Houston Chronicle, apologizing to Astros fans for moving the Astros-Cubs series to Milwaukee, where Carlos Zambrano threw a no-hitter in front of a pro-Chicago crowd. Selig sure seems to be in the cross-hairs of controversial and no-win situations going back to the dreaded tie in the All-Star Game. Still, I am not sure what the solution would have been in this situation and I think is silly to believe this is the reason the Astros won't make the playoffs. (Biz of Baseball)

Darren Rovell of CNBC doesn't want you to tell him the outcome of Saturday's Northwestern-Iowa football game. So, if you are one of the six people subjected to it, don't send him an email. Instead, he is going to try not to find out the result of the game from the time he TiVo's it at noon until he gets home from his "errands" on Saturday at about 10:30 pm. Rovell contends games are "un-TiVoable". Not only is this not true, it is wrong. I DVR'd (I don't have the proprietary TiVo) the Super Bowl by pausing the game. I went upstairs, read stories to my son, and helped him get ready for bed. I went back downstairs and unpaused the game and watched the ending of the Super Bowl 30 minutes after it occurred. It is possible to "TiVo" games and still enjoy them. What is imminently more difficult, is avoiding the other forms of content delivery (radio, BlackBerry, etc.) which deliver the results. (CNBC Sports Biz)

Corry Cropper of the The Sports Academic presents an argument that the French influenced the development of early American football. Seriously. Sacre bleu. (The Sports Academic)

The Fort Myers News-Press reports 21 NCAA Division I-A (yes, I know, FBS) schools spend more than $1 million each on football recruiting. It is an interesting read. For example, I didn't know the reason Kansas State was no longer good and Kansas is was because the school has to pick up recruits in Kansas City and drive to Manhattan, which includes passing the exit for Lawrence, home of the University of Kansas. Hey KSU, why not fly the recruits to Wichita? No football there. (Free-Press) BTW - H/T to the The Big Lead for linking to this. I am not deranged enough to have the Fort Myers News-Press in my Google Reader.

Finally, the good folks at the Sports Law Blog wrote about Duke's victory over Louisville in the court system. Duke's lawyers effectively argued that Duke's football team is the worst in Division I-A (FBS). Classic. (Sports Law Blog)

SEC & ESPN Going to Grow Old Together

2008-08-25T15:53:00.006-04:00

Well, it was certainly nice of the folks in the SEC to announce a new television deal with ESPN on the first day of classes here. I guess that is what they mean when they refer to "Southern hospitality".

Anyway, here is the rub. SEC signs 15-year, $2.25 billion (with a "B"), ostensibly eliminating the possibility of an SEC Network. Mike Slive, commissioner of the SEC, said as much in today's conference call with the media.

You can read the details of the announcement at the link above. Here is what is not said.

At $2.25 billion for 15 years, that's $150 million per year or $12.5 million per institution per year, before the conference presumably skims a little off the top. Assume that each institution receives $10 million per year, that is equivalent to nearly one-third of the athletic budget at, say, the University of Mississippi, according to data from the Office of Postsecondary Education Equity in Athletics website.

Slive talked extensively on the call (as he should) about the academic benefits for conference institutions, including student interns in broadcasting.

The ESPN platforms (as they exist today) will broadcast 5500 events over the next 15 years.

So, good deal or bad deal? and why did the SEC agree to this?

First, I think, come 2020, we'll see that this is a good deal for ESPN. The thing about long-term contracts is that as inflation rises, the actual cost decreases. $150 million today is less than $150 million in 2020.
Second, the SEC rightly recognizes that the ESPN/ABC platforms have the highest brand recognition and already have wide distribution. Going it alone would have presented all of the challenges and headaches the Big Ten Network and NFL Network are experiencing.
Third, as Tony Barnhart of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports the distribution of ESPNU, one of the platforms on which content will be distributed, will grow its reach by as many as 14 million homes, all on Comcast. The network is currently available in 22 million homes, about one-quarter of the U.S.
Fourth, each school gets one pay-per-view football game per year, plus the ability to retain the rights to non-conference men's basketball games and sell them in their local markets.
Fifth, add this deal on to the $55 million per year for 15 years CBS announced it would pay the SEC for football games on August 14 of this year. That is $200 million per year ... or roughly 1/4 of what NBC committed to the Beijing Olympic Games, something which lasts 17 days.

All of this to say, the SEC made out very well in this deal. And, given the rabid nature of SEC athletic fans, I suspect ESPN will do just fine with its advertising revenue.

8.08.08

2008-08-07T23:54:00.006-04:00

Precisely three months after my last post, I am getting back into it. I have officially relocated to Arkansas and am eager to start at my new institution later this month. Apparently I will be learning to call a hog ... presumably something other than "bacon".

I was invited to be a visiting assistant professor at the Instituto de Empresa Business School in Madrid and spent a quick five days in Spain last month. I am teaching a course titled "Sport Media and Sport Public Relations". The rest of the course will be administered online. Thanks to Gabby, Gerardo, and everyone there for their hospitality.

All of the students are MBA students and collectively they represent 11 different nationalities. I am always amazed by Europeans and their ability to converse in multiple languages and switch mid sentence. One of my students, who works for a major international sports federation, is fluent in five languages. I got by on my rusty Spanish from college and an audiobook refresher I listened to in the weeks leading up to my trip.

8.08.08 is also significant as the beginning of the Olympic Games. I love the Olympics and have many, many fond memories as a kid watching ABC in the 70s and 80s and listening to McKay, Cosell, Schenkel, Jackson, Michaels, Whittaker, etc. I was fortunate earlier in my career to work for the USOC, USA Wrestling, and two organizing committees - 1996 Atlanta and 2002 Salt Lake City.

It was the Beijing Olympics which prompted me to post today. I heard an interesting story on NPR this morning regarding how NBC Sports (rights holder in the U.S.) and NBC News may have conflicting objectives. This conflict is further muddied by GE (parent company to both NBC Sports and NBC News) and its TOP sponsorship of the IOC.

At issue is whether NBC Sports, during its telecast of the Olympic Games, will cover the news stories of China - Darfur, Tibet, Human Rights, etc. Of course this begs the question whether there is a difference between NBC Sports and NBC News at all (or any other network for that matter).

What's at stake? NBC Sports paid $800 million-plus for the media rights to the Olympics. Advertisers have paid lots of money for air time during the Games (heck, John McCain ponied up $6 million alone). Presumably, those parties all want a positive experience and would not like to be associated with human rights violations and other negative news stories.

As the Games open tomorrow, I'll be watching to see how this is handled. My hope is that NBC covers all aspects of the Games and China and does not ignore the bad news. But, large, corporate media conglomerates pander much more for the money than for the public good.

Here is the link to the NPR story by David Folkenflik. Give it a listen.

More posts to come as we count down to the first day of class - Aug. 25.

Your NFL Network Update for the Week

2008-05-08T13:23:00.004-04:00

As alluded to a couple of weeks ago, the NFL Network did, indeed, file a complaint with the FCC. Neil Best of Newsday posted the text to the complaint on his WatchDog blog here. (Thanks, Neil)

As Neil points out, the NFL Network makes some valid points.

“Comcast’s discrimination has taken two related forms:
“Comcast carries the NFL Network on a premium digital sports tier for which subscribers must pay substantial extra fees while uniformly carrying sports channels that it owns on an analog basic tier that entails no extra cost for subscribers.
“Comcast exploited its bottleneck power by dropping the NFL Network from its highly-penetrated digital basic tier in the wake of a decision by the National Football League not to grant Comcast telecast rights [for] a valuable program package of eight, live football games for Versus, a competing Comcast-owned sports channel.”

I have previously said that both sides are right and both sides are wrong, and that is still my stance. However, I was not aware of this:

“As a further condition of its offer [for the eight-game cable package], Comcast demanded that the league prohibit all broadcasters, including local broadcasters in the competing teams’ home markets, from carrying the eight games over the air. The league refused to acquiesce in Comcast’s demand, which was inconsistent with the league’s long-standing policy of providing fans with access to their local games through free over-the-air broadcasters.”

Clearly, if Comcast did this when it was trying to negotiate for the NFL package on Versus, the company was wrong. The firmest ground the NFL has to stand on in its fight for public opinion is that it does provide fans with access to their local games on free over-the-air television (as long as the game is sold out 72 hours in advance).

Richard Sandomir of the New York Times has additional insight in today's paper, including some smear between then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and Comcast president Brian Roberts from 2006.

I am officially changing my position. Comcast is wrong and the NFL Network is right. Comcast is acting in a manner which is discriminatory by favoring networks in which they have equity interest. The NFLN has refused to allow private equity stakes in the NFLN. If it were to that and Comcast were to receive some piece of the pie, I am certain this issue would gently into that good night. Until then (and it likely won't occur), the NFLN will keep pressing the issue. As well they should.

South Carolina Public Hearing Fallout

2008-05-02T08:58:00.005-04:00

I'm certain I am making much more out of this than necessary, but here are some highlights from the South Carolina State Senate Public Hearing on cable antidiscrimination and dispute resolution from yesterday.

Some insight into why the NFL flew a rep to South Carolina to testify along with a president of the Carolina Panthers (From The State)...

Mark Richardson, owner of the Carolina Panthers, asked South Carolina to become the first state to put in place an arbitration system aimed at forcing major cable networks to feature the NFL Network as part of their basic digital programming packages.
Such disputes normally are settled by the FCC, but Richardson and others told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee the federal process is too slow and ineffective and that states have the authority to intervene when their consumers’ best interest are not being served.

Here is the PR Newswire release from Football 24/7 Carolina (notice the typo at the end when it refers to consumers in "North" Carolina, as opposed to "South", where the news originated. At least it seems like a typo).

Same theme from Richardson as it has been, the NFL Network is being discriminated against.

"Simply put, NFL Network is treated unfairly because it is not owned by a cable company.
"Those cable companies have 'bottleneck' power -- they control access to their customers, so they are able to pay more attention to their profit margins than what their customers want," said Richardson. "As a result, our fans aren't getting the programming they want."

The result? The South Carolina Senate chose not to act, effectively killing any potential legislation possibility for 2008.

That said, this episode provides insight to the NFL Network's strategy. It appears the NFLN is fed up with the FCC's lack of progress on a resolution. The FCC still has not ruled on XM-Sirius and is potentially facing hearings into Rupert Murdoch's bid to buy Newsday (great episode of NPR's OnPoint about this on Wednesday).

As a result, the NFLN is mobilizing grassroots organizations to pressure state legislatures to resolve the carriage. I have not decided whether I think this is a creative lobbying strategy, or an act of desperation. I need to see whether the NFLN engages other state legislatures in similar lobbying strategies before deciding. Right now, I am leaning toward smart business strategy.

Troubles brewing for Kevin Martin, FCC?

2008-05-01T09:24:00.005-04:00

Catching up on some news from the week. It does not appear FCC chair Kevin Martin is in for an enjoyable remainder of 2008.

Rep. John Dingell of Michigan is interested in looking into the FCC's practices. You may remember Dingell as the House member who spoke out last summer about carriage issues between the Big Ten Network and cable operators in his home state.

In addition, Martin appears unlikely to win the support of his Republican colleagues on the issue of a la carte pricing in the cable industry.

Martin is appointed by the president. If a Democrat takes the White House in November, Martin is likely out. However, if John McCain were to win, the word from a segment on C-SPAN's Communicators I podcasted (is that a verb?) some time back is that McCain might keep Martin in his current position.

The issue of a la carte price is intriguing (as I wrote about last September) and would certainly benefit consumers by allowing them to buy only the stations they want, even if it raised prices slightly. However, big cable operators (and their lobbyists) will oppose it because of the possibility of lost revenue from unbundling.

A la carte pricing would solve some carriage issues for RSNs such as the NFL Network and the Big Ten Network, but it might also drive up the per subscriber fee for those networks and others. Consider this:

If ESPN gets $3.00 per subcriber today (see New York Times chart in right-hand column) and is in 90 million homes, it would need to charge $4.50 per subscriber to maintain current revenue if, under a la carte pricing, only 60 million homes (a 33% reduction in subscribers) chose to subscribe to ESPN. The fewer subscribers, the more the network would cost. But, again, the consumer is getting exactly what he or she wants.

Ocean of War

2008-05-01T08:55:00.007-04:00

Keeping with the Samples theme from last week, this week's end of the week post title comes from the band's debut album (1989 - gosh, I'm old). I thought it summed up the week in the sports blogosphere, courtesy of Costas Now.

Neil Best of Newsday dispatched a "rookie" reporter to the NFL Network upfront and he got some interesting comments from NFLN President Steve Bornstein
Marie Hardin of Penn State's Center for Sports Journalism on the perils of sport blogging for MSM
Is ESPN trying to lock up every tennis tournament? Is there money in tennis? Can you name five men's tennis players? (From Sports Media Watch)
ESPN Regional Television creates another college bowl game, the St. Petersburg Bowl. While the article from Mediaweek does not definitively say, I assume it is Florida and not Russia
The FCC still has not ruled on the XM-Sirius merger. I still intend to write more on this after the semester ends (From Broadcasting & Cable)
NESN rebranding its web site to become "online gathering place for fans of New England sports." (From Multichannel News)
Nothing to do with sports, but do we really need QVC in HD? (From Multichannel News)
Sports Media Journal's weekly review of "What They're Saying"
Sports Media Watch's roundup of the Costas Now segment (I'm done with it)

Enjoy the First Saturday in May (nothing better than Churchill Downs, a mint julep, hot browns, hats, and the infield - from a University of Louisville alum).

Costas Now

2008-04-30T18:25:00.005-04:00

I'll provide more thoughtful analysis tomorrow of the Costas Now segment on blogging from Tuesday night. I don't get HBO so I did not watch live. For now, links to everyone else's thoughts. To see the segments, click on the Awful Announcing links below (thanks, Brian, for posting)...

Part one from AA
Parts two and three from AA

Awful Announcing
Deadspin
Deadspin - AJ Daulerio
Fanhouse
Fire Joe Morgan

Watch the videos first before reading the commentary. When did Bob Costas become mightier than thou? I have always thought of him as an amiable person who tells me the GDP of Congo every four years when the Olympic Opening Ceremonies take place.

UPDATE (May 2, 2008): Sorry, I am too slow on this one. Everyone else has written about it and I have nothing new to add. Plenty more from Jason Whitlock and Neil Best (actual journalists, as opposed to, you know, bloggers who don't have credentials).

South Carolina Senate to debate cable industry

2008-04-30T17:34:00.003-04:00

The South Carolina state senate judicial committee will hold a public hearing tomorrow (May 1) to discuss cable discrimination and dispute resolution.

Why is this interesting? Because the list of speakers include Carolina Panthers President Mark Richardson and Frank Hawkins, Vice President in the NFL. The media advisory linked to in the previous sentence comes from Football 24.7 Regional Coordinator. Football 24.7 is the motto of the NFL Network.

One of the dominant cable providers in Columbia, S.C. (state capitol) is Time Warner Cable, one of the chief combatants with the NFL Network over carriage.

Hmmm.... A new strategy by the NFLN?

I'll link to media coverage of the hearing. I am certain that with the Panthers president on the agenda, there will be some...