forums

CW costing us money?

TheOriginalCane said:
Yes. Emotion and "people not realizing the name of one of the five TV broadcast networks, and which has existed for 19 years".
Click to expand...
Could’ve been around for a hundred years. If the common person doesn’t associate it with a football Saturday and it gets less eyes on the team in a sport driven by narratives, I don’t really give a ****.

Has there ever been a single CW game with higher ratings than the competing ESPN or ABC game in the same window? I’d bet a lot of money the answer is no.
 
Advertisement
2FNFST4U said:
It is literally right below NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox on every streaming platform. Direct, Dish, Youtube. Not hard to find at all. It id blacked out on some providers though
Click to expand...
Honestly, I had to look it up. Didn’t know CW still existed until this week. Channel 44 on DIRECTV apparently.
 
JennStrawley’sBabyDaddy said:
So you’re in the, “let’s celebrate the CW” crowd? At least we get to be part of the Brennaman comeback tour.
Click to expand...


Seriously? That's your takeaway?

How about this. Porsters **** and moan that we are locked into ABC/ESPN, and they PINE AWAY to have more bidders on the broadcast contracts (if only to raise the bid, but still).

Then you get a new network involved, and porsters continue to **** and moan about "never having heard" of the fifth-leading broadcast network that has been around for nearly 20 years.

You get that, right? Meanwhile, some of those same porsters have been telling us how the streamers would be our white-knights in the next TV contract negotiations, because...kids...I guess...like to stream rather than use broadcast or cable networks.

Here's the reality. I'm not "celebrating" The CW. I'm one of the few people who has been CRITICIZING the old Jefferson Pilot/Raycom secondary rights deal FOR A DECADE. So, no, I'm not "happy", I'm not "celebrating". But to quote the great Stork from Animal House, "What the **** are we supposed to do, ya morons?"

I specifically rebutted certain posters who were FACTUALLY INCORRECT earlier in the thread. That this is NOT an ACC game. This is an OOC game. Everyone underestimated this game from the outset. So we got stuck on The CW. Now some people are acting like ABC/ESPN can act like a savior within 7 days of the broadcast, AND THAT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE. Contractually.

So while I would LIKE to have the game on a "bigger network", I don't see how that can happen. And of all the complaints about THIS ISSUE, I have the least amount of sympathy for "I've never heard of The CW".
 
TwentySix said:
Could’ve been around for a hundred years. If the common person doesn’t associate it with a football Saturday and it gets less eyes on the team in a sport driven by narratives, I don’t really give a ****.

Has there ever been a single CW game with higher ratings than the competing ESPN or ABC game in the same window? I’d bet a lot of money the answer is no.
Click to expand...


Do you want new networks to join in the competitive bidding process so that we are no longer held hostage by ESPN? Everybody has to start somewhere. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Again, try re-reading the thread from the beginning. This is NOT an ACC game. This is NOT covered by our existing media rights deal. I'm not sure what people actually expect here. USF, while ranked, is still a member of the AAC. BEFORE THE LAST 10 DAYS, who in their right mind thought that USF would be a big game? And let's not deny that most of the idiot pundits were predicting an 8-4 season for Miami.

At this late date, did we really think ESPN/ABC was going to drop their panties to figure out a timeslot for Miami-USF? They've got the motherfvcking SEC to be worried about. And it's not the ACC's job to shop around an OOC game, to make more money for ONE of its member institutions, when they are way more concerned about, you know, the ACTUAL ACC CONTENT.

This is the same old bull**** that we hear from less-knowledgeable football fans. They think that realignment decisions will be made on the basis of the latest Top 25 rankings. Or that TV broadcast decisions should be based on ancient conferece affliations (why anyone broadcasts Northwestern or Purdue or Minnesota, I will never be able to figure out).

Does this current situation suck? Sure. Is it fixable? No. Is it "costing us money"? Not really, certainly not in terms of the ACC deal, and I really have heard no plausible information as to who was going to pick up this OOC game. Often, it is the network associated with the home team, but we all know that ESPN/ABC would rather broadcast a Vandy game (against just about anyone) over a UM-USF game (or at least they would up until finding out this was a Top 25 matchup, which only happened on Sunday).

Just figure out where you can get The CW between now and Saturday. Yes, it may not be the #1 rated game of the year. So let's make it the #1 rated game on The CW all year. THAT is definitely possible. Most people are smart enough to figure things out. We won't lose out on Big 10 membership because one of our OOC games against an AAC team was put on The CW. And if we drag enough eyeballs to the fifth place broadcast network (out of five), it will be an impressive accomplishment no matter how you slice it.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Do you want new networks to join in the competitive bidding process so that we are no longer held hostage by ESPN? Everybody has to start somewhere. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Again, try re-reading the thread from the beginning. This is NOT an ACC game. This is NOT covered by our existing media rights deal. I'm not sure what people actually expect here. USF, while ranked, is still a member of the AAC. BEFORE THE LAST 10 DAYS, who in their right mind thought that USF would be a big game? And let's not deny that most of the idiot pundits were predicting an 8-4 season for Miami.

At this late date, did we really think ESPN/ABC was going to drop their panties to figure out a timeslot for Miami-USF? They've got the motherfvcking SEC to be worried about. And it's not the ACC's job to shop around an OOC game, to make more money for ONE of its member institutions, when they are way more concerned about, you know, the ACTUAL ACC CONTENT.

This is the same old bull**** that we hear from less-knowledgeable football fans. They think that realignment decisions will be made on the basis of the latest Top 25 rankings. Or that TV broadcast decisions should be based on ancient conferece affliations (why anyone broadcasts Northwestern or Purdue or Minnesota, I will never be able to figure out).

Does this current situation suck? Sure. Is it fixable? No. Is it "costing us money"? Not really, certainly not in terms of the ACC deal, and I really have heard no plausible information as to who was going to pick up this OOC game. Often, it is the network associated with the home team, but we all know that ESPN/ABC would rather broadcast a Vandy game (against just about anyone) over a UM-USF game (or at least they would up until finding out this was a Top 25 matchup, which only happened on Sunday).

Just figure out where you can get The CW between now and Saturday. Yes, it may not be the #1 rated game of the year. So let's make it the #1 rated game on The CW all year. THAT is definitely possible. Most people are smart enough to figure things out. We won't lose out on Big 10 membership because one of our OOC games against an AAC team was put on The CW. And if we drag enough eyeballs to the fifth place broadcast network (out of five), it will be an impressive accomplishment no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...
I ain’t reading all that lol, I probably don’t even disagree with you.

I read the thread. Only thing that I’m talking about is the “football fans will find the games”, “CW is more widely available than ESPN” nonsense. Not saying anything could be done about it in this instance. But it definitely matters and will be a negative impact in terms of eyeballs on the game.
 
TwentySix said:
I ain’t reading all that lol, I probably don’t even disagree with you.

I read the thread. Only thing that I’m talking about is the “football fans will find the games”, “CW is more widely available than ESPN” nonsense. Not saying anything could be done about it in this instance. But it definitely matters and will be a negative impact in terms of eyeballs on the game.
Click to expand...
You can watch CW for free with an antenna or even on your roku. Anybody can access the game at the mighty sum of zero. ESPN obviously isn't free and obviously more people watch it. So what?
 
NCCanefan said:
You can watch CW for free with an antenna or even on your roku. Anybody can access the game at the mighty sum of zero. ESPN obviously isn't free and obviously more people watch it. So what?
Click to expand...
Why did you just say everything I’m saying as if you’re disagreeing.

CW is more accessible. More fans watch ESPN. The idea that more accessible leads to more casual fans watching is statistically false.
 
Advertisement
TwentySix said:
Why did you just say everything I’m saying as if you’re disagreeing.

CW is more accessible. More fans watch ESPN. The idea that more accessible leads to more casual fans watching is statistically false.
Click to expand...
I think CW has only been broadcasting CFB games for a couple years. This game will help build their brand in the sport.

Also, I can't recall a ranked match up on CW before, so it may do better than you think. We'll see when the rating numbers come out after the game.
 
TwentySix said:
Why did you just say everything I’m saying as if you’re disagreeing.

CW is more accessible. More fans watch ESPN. The idea that more accessible leads to more casual fans watching is statistically false.
Click to expand...

A college football fan will tune in to a game between two ranked opponents. Usually they will look at the schedule and pick intriguing games and then how to access it. Not sure why because it’s not on ESPN they will not tune in. If accessible they will watch it.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Seriously? That's your takeaway?

How about this. Porsters **** and moan that we are locked into ABC/ESPN, and they PINE AWAY to have more bidders on the broadcast contracts (if only to raise the bid, but still).

Then you get a new network involved, and porsters continue to **** and moan about "never having heard" of the fifth-leading broadcast network that has been around for nearly 20 years.

You get that, right? Meanwhile, some of those same porsters have been telling us how the streamers would be our white-knights in the next TV contract negotiations, because...kids...I guess...like to stream rather than use broadcast or cable networks.

Here's the reality. I'm not "celebrating" The CW. I'm one of the few people who has been CRITICIZING the old Jefferson Pilot/Raycom secondary rights deal FOR A DECADE. So, no, I'm not "happy", I'm not "celebrating". But to quote the great Stork from Animal House, "What the **** are we supposed to do, ya morons?"

I specifically rebutted certain posters who were FACTUALLY INCORRECT earlier in the thread. That this is NOT an ACC game. This is an OOC game. Everyone underestimated this game from the outset. So we got stuck on The CW. Now some people are acting like ABC/ESPN can act like a savior within 7 days of the broadcast, AND THAT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE. Contractually.

So while I would LIKE to have the game on a "bigger network", I don't see how that can happen. And of all the complaints about THIS ISSUE, I have the least amount of sympathy for "I've never heard of The CW".
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you’re saying. I think people are mostly annoyed that we’re in a conference that relegates games to the CW. I’m pretty sure most people have heard of the CW.
 
TwentySix said:
I ain’t reading all that lol, I probably don’t even disagree with you.

I read the thread. Only thing that I’m talking about is the “football fans will find the games”, “CW is more widely available than ESPN” nonsense. Not saying anything could be done about it in this instance. But it definitely matters and will be a negative impact in terms of eyeballs on the game.
Click to expand...


So now you will pick and choose what to read, as well as pick and choose your own conclusions?

I'm not trying to argue with you, but the only negative impact on "eyeballs on the game" will be the fact that UGa-Tennessee is on at almost the exact same time.

The CW took a chance on UM-USF and it paid off. Other networks underestimated this game at their peril. It's an OOC game, so the ACC can do nothing.

It sucks, but it is what it is. And a bunch of CIS posters acting like they've never even heard of The CW isn't helping matters.
 
Advertisement
JennStrawley’sBabyDaddy said:
I agree with most of what you’re saying. I think people are mostly annoyed that we’re in a conference that relegates games to the CW. I’m pretty sure most people have heard of the CW.
Click to expand...


That's fair. Except I don't think this is as much of an "ACC thing" as some people are making it out to be.

I'm just not sure who is going to carry our OOC games now that ESPN is filling its days with SEC games, and the local independent channels and/or the regional sports networks are disappearing. At least for sports.

In no way am I defending this, I just don't know that we have a lot of options until we join the Big 10.



emergency maintenance GIF
 
FWIW, most live TV providers no longer function like cable boxes. Someone who watches any amount of college football will see this game pop up in their algorithmically curated feed when they start their app.

Nevertheless, ESPN (or some derivative) would have been preferable.
 
Hold up

Is this thread for real?

Like are people seriously sitting around thinking…

“Man I can’t believe normies aren’t gonna see my canes this week”

Ain’t no way right? Yall are ******* with me?
 
Back
Top