Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:20 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: April 27, 2013 Pirates (13-10) at Cardinals (14-8)
PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:57 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6156
I switched over to the Cardinals feed to watch the end and that is exactly what they did. Picked up the Blues game in progress.... :roll: :roll:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: April 27, 2013 Pirates (13-10) at Cardinals (14-8)
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5334
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
PirateParrot wrote:
BBF wrote:
Fact remains more Pittsburghers would rather watch a meaningless hockey game than a (fairly) meaningless April baseball game.

ROOT knows where the ratings are.

I totally agree. But if the TV deal isn't second rate I would think they wouldn't have a choice. We are talking about finishing the last inning of the baseball game then cutting to the hockey. In almost every instance I can think of they join the next game in progress.


What ROOT paid for broadcast rights for either team has nothing to do with the decision to cut away to show the Penguins' game. It has everything to do with what ROOT perceives to be te market demand.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: April 27, 2013 Pirates (13-10) at Cardinals (14-8)
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:15 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2058
No. 9 wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
BBF wrote:
Fact remains more Pittsburghers would rather watch a meaningless hockey game than a (fairly) meaningless April baseball game.

ROOT knows where the ratings are.

I totally agree. But if the TV deal isn't second rate I would think they wouldn't have a choice. We are talking about finishing the last inning of the baseball game then cutting to the hockey. In almost every instance I can think of they join the next game in progress.


What ROOT paid for broadcast rights for either team has nothing to do with the decision to cut away to show the Penguins' game. It has everything to do with what ROOT perceives to be te market demand.

If the TV deal was a good one, it wouldn't matter what the demand was IN THIS INSTANCE. Again, we are talking about finishing part of an inning of a baseball game then joining a meaningless(in the standings) hockey game in progress.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: April 27, 2013 Pirates (13-10) at Cardinals (14-8)
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5334
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Parrot -
How? I know that DK is pounding the "its a bad TV deal" these in his blog and on Twitter and it may be tempting to use him as the foundation for the opinion, but . . . the question remains "how are the terms of the TV deal and ROOT's decision to cut away linked?"

The money paid by ROOT to the Pirates has nothing . . . I repeat nothing . . . to do with the decision to cut away. It has everything to do with the current popularity of the two teams in the ROOT broadcasting market. And the Penguins are more popular right now. In ROOT's eyes (and those are the only eyes that matter), the Penguins will draw better ratings and the higher advertising dollars. The Pirates could have signed the best TV deal of all time but if ROOT feels on 4-27-13 that switching to the Pens would draw better ratings, then ROOT is going to switch over because ROOT wants high ratings so that it can demand higher advertising dollars.

Now . . . if you want to blame the decision to cut away on the fact that the Pirates have 20 straight losing seasons, have lost a sizeable viewing audience and the Pens have capitalized on that by fielding a team which appears to be one of the leading candidates to win the Stanley Cup . . . I'll buy that. And that speaks to the lousy baseball played in Pittsburgh over the past 20 years.

But . . . trying to tie the existing TV deal (and I'm still not buying DK's argument that it was a "lousy" deal) to yesterday's decision is, IMO, a misguided effort to further sling mud at the existing management team.

Unless you believe that the deal was lousy because it didn't include a clause which precluded ROOT from switching away. And, if that is how you define lousy, I'd point out that I"ve seen WHite SOx games switched away from when the Black Hawks were hot.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: April 27, 2013 Pirates (13-10) at Cardinals (14-8)
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
No. 9 wrote:
Parrot -
How? I know that DK is pounding the "its a bad TV deal" these in his blog and on Twitter and it may be tempting to use him as the foundation for the opinion, but . . . the question remains "how are the terms of the TV deal and ROOT's decision to cut away linked?"

The money paid by ROOT to the Pirates has nothing . . . I repeat nothing . . . to do with the decision to cut away. It has everything to do with the current popularity of the two teams in the ROOT broadcasting market. And the Penguins are more popular right now. In ROOT's eyes (and those are the only eyes that matter), the Penguins will draw better ratings and the higher advertising dollars. The Pirates could have signed the best TV deal of all time but if ROOT feels on 4-27-13 that switching to the Pens would draw better ratings, then ROOT is going to switch over because ROOT wants high ratings so that it can demand higher advertising dollars.

Now . . . if you want to blame the decision to cut away on the fact that the Pirates have 20 straight losing seasons, have lost a sizeable viewing audience and the Pens have capitalized on that by fielding a team which appears to be one of the leading candidates to win the Stanley Cup . . . I'll buy that. And that speaks to the lousy baseball played in Pittsburgh over the past 20 years.

But . . . trying to tie the existing TV deal (and I'm still not buying DK's argument that it was a "lousy" deal) to yesterday's decision is, IMO, a misguided effort to further sling mud at the existing management team.

Unless you believe that the deal was lousy because it didn't include a clause which precluded ROOT from switching away. And, if that is how you define lousy, I'd point out that I"ve seen WHite SOx games switched away from when the Black Hawks were hot.


The deal is lousy today, but it was not when it was signed. The big TV money started in the 2011 offseason, the Bucs made their deal before 2010. You can blame Coonelly for not seeing a shift coming, but its not like he saw the big money out there and took less. His negotiating power coming off 2009 with a terrible team and limited market was not exactly strong.

At any rate, the TV golden goose is going to die with the advent of online programming.

Also, I do think the decision to switch may be dictated by the deal. The Pirates always have to defer to the Pens on Root. I bet it is contractual.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: April 27, 2013 Pirates (13-10) at Cardinals (14-8)
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:52 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5353
The M's just bought a large (if not whole) stake in their RSN.

Any chance the Bucs follow suite?

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: April 27, 2013 Pirates (13-10) at Cardinals (14-8)
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7187
Barrys Dopers wrote:
The deal is lousy today, but it was not when it was signed. The big TV money started in the 2011 offseason, the Bucs made their deal before 2010. You can blame Coonelly for not seeing a shift coming, but its not like he saw the big money out there and took less. His negotiating power coming off 2009 with a terrible team and limited market was not exactly strong.

At any rate, the TV golden goose is going to die with the advent of online programming.

Also, I do think the decision to switch may be dictated by the deal. The Pirates always have to defer to the Pens on Root. I bet it is contractual.


Everyone is complaining about the TV deal, but who knows Root may have been the only one to offer them a deal? What other station in Pittsburgh is capable of showing all the games that they do? They may not have had a choice.

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: April 27, 2013 Pirates (13-10) at Cardinals (14-8)
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2058
Barrys Dopers wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Parrot -
How? I know that DK is pounding the "its a bad TV deal" these in his blog and on Twitter and it may be tempting to use him as the foundation for the opinion, but . . . the question remains "how are the terms of the TV deal and ROOT's decision to cut away linked?"

The money paid by ROOT to the Pirates has nothing . . . I repeat nothing . . . to do with the decision to cut away. It has everything to do with the current popularity of the two teams in the ROOT broadcasting market. And the Penguins are more popular right now. In ROOT's eyes (and those are the only eyes that matter), the Penguins will draw better ratings and the higher advertising dollars. The Pirates could have signed the best TV deal of all time but if ROOT feels on 4-27-13 that switching to the Pens would draw better ratings, then ROOT is going to switch over because ROOT wants high ratings so that it can demand higher advertising dollars.

Now . . . if you want to blame the decision to cut away on the fact that the Pirates have 20 straight losing seasons, have lost a sizeable viewing audience and the Pens have capitalized on that by fielding a team which appears to be one of the leading candidates to win the Stanley Cup . . . I'll buy that. And that speaks to the lousy baseball played in Pittsburgh over the past 20 years.

But . . . trying to tie the existing TV deal (and I'm still not buying DK's argument that it was a "lousy" deal) to yesterday's decision is, IMO, a misguided effort to further sling mud at the existing management team.

Unless you believe that the deal was lousy because it didn't include a clause which precluded ROOT from switching away. And, if that is how you define lousy, I'd point out that I"ve seen WHite SOx games switched away from when the Black Hawks were hot.


The deal is lousy today, but it was not when it was signed. The big TV money started in the 2011 offseason, the Bucs made their deal before 2010. You can blame Coonelly for not seeing a shift coming, but its not like he saw the big money out there and took less. His negotiating power coming off 2009 with a terrible team and limited market was not exactly strong.

At any rate, the TV golden goose is going to die with the advent of online programming.

Also, I do think the decision to switch may be dictated by the deal. The Pirates always have to defer to the Pens on Root. I bet it is contractual.

I get that they defer to the Pens when games are scheduled at the same time. This was a Pirates game ROOT chose to air, but didn't allow viewers to see the last inning. I still think if they have more cash invested in the Pirates or not as many years before they have to renegotiate they wouldn't make such decisions. I think they would show them a little more respect in a situation like this.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: April 27, 2013 Pirates (13-10) at Cardinals (14-8)
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
PirateParrot wrote:
Barrys Dopers wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Parrot -
How? I know that DK is pounding the "its a bad TV deal" these in his blog and on Twitter and it may be tempting to use him as the foundation for the opinion, but . . . the question remains "how are the terms of the TV deal and ROOT's decision to cut away linked?"

The money paid by ROOT to the Pirates has nothing . . . I repeat nothing . . . to do with the decision to cut away. It has everything to do with the current popularity of the two teams in the ROOT broadcasting market. And the Penguins are more popular right now. In ROOT's eyes (and those are the only eyes that matter), the Penguins will draw better ratings and the higher advertising dollars. The Pirates could have signed the best TV deal of all time but if ROOT feels on 4-27-13 that switching to the Pens would draw better ratings, then ROOT is going to switch over because ROOT wants high ratings so that it can demand higher advertising dollars.

Now . . . if you want to blame the decision to cut away on the fact that the Pirates have 20 straight losing seasons, have lost a sizeable viewing audience and the Pens have capitalized on that by fielding a team which appears to be one of the leading candidates to win the Stanley Cup . . . I'll buy that. And that speaks to the lousy baseball played in Pittsburgh over the past 20 years.

But . . . trying to tie the existing TV deal (and I'm still not buying DK's argument that it was a "lousy" deal) to yesterday's decision is, IMO, a misguided effort to further sling mud at the existing management team.

Unless you believe that the deal was lousy because it didn't include a clause which precluded ROOT from switching away. And, if that is how you define lousy, I'd point out that I"ve seen WHite SOx games switched away from when the Black Hawks were hot.


The deal is lousy today, but it was not when it was signed. The big TV money started in the 2011 offseason, the Bucs made their deal before 2010. You can blame Coonelly for not seeing a shift coming, but its not like he saw the big money out there and took less. His negotiating power coming off 2009 with a terrible team and limited market was not exactly strong.

At any rate, the TV golden goose is going to die with the advent of online programming.

Also, I do think the decision to switch may be dictated by the deal. The Pirates always have to defer to the Pens on Root. I bet it is contractual.

I get that they defer to the Pens when games are scheduled at the same time. This was a Pirates game ROOT chose to air, but didn't allow viewers to see the last inning. I still think if they have more cash invested in the Pirates or not as many years before they have to renegotiate they wouldn't make such decisions. I think they would show them a little more respect in a situation like this.



You can think whatever you want PP, fact is they did not. My guess is there is a concrete deal that says Pens get the right of way. we used to not get the Pirates on TV at all when the Pens were playing.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: April 27, 2013 Pirates (13-10) at Cardinals (14-8)
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:54 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
I don't know if it is a concrete deal that the Pens get priority. What I would guess is that each team's respective deal guarantees coverage of a set minimum number of games in their entirety. That's why root picks up additional games after rain outs.

In this case, it's easier to add a Pirates game some time this summer than to add a pens game, given this was their last game.

My guess is the pens wouldn't have objected to them joining in progress, but ratings led root to make that decision.

I can't see how this is reflective of a Poorly negotiated deal.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits