TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Aug 22nd, 2012 07:11 PM
USTennisfan
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by its_a_racquet View Post
Yeah we disagree.........in reading your last post here it's as if you subscribe to the "hope is my strategy" philosphy. The reality here is there could be serious unintended consequences of the decision. And unless there is a compelling revenue model, then that risk is just not worth it.

College tennis just doesn't make sense for TV unless you are a die-hard fan (like me), or have a child or a child of a close friend playing. The numbers won't work. Ok, the horse is dead.
Gosh I guess you have an answer for reality? Who's ? be careful attempting to think everyone shares your reality.

The consequences again maybe unintended, see again I leave a door open like our minds should be...

But YOU and all of us fanboys can never speak for the masses I am sure TV people wouldn't be televising any sport if they thought like you! ESPNU come to mind. An entire network for college sports...

Again yee of little faith! Do you think they had your foresight ? Funny!! I guess it's a network for parents? And friends? What a joke!
Aug 22nd, 2012 05:58 PM
its_a_racquet
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by USTennisfan View Post
Then this is where I guess that it is time to best to just agree to disagree. As I try to put adjustment factors, you know what usually happens when people are trying to find a perfect balance. Like my notes that much of the risk is on the networks, when TV rights are sold, and yet most have what they believe is the correct answer, to questions that really can't be anwered...I don't know the answer, but most arguements are with certainity here.

With no give and take discussion stops.

so, then we can revisit after the fact. Let's all just wait and see!
Yeah we disagree.........in reading your last post here it's as if you subscribe to the "hope is my strategy" philosphy. The reality here is there could be serious unintended consequences of the decision. And unless there is a compelling revenue model, then that risk is just not worth it.

College tennis just doesn't make sense for TV unless you are a die-hard fan (like me), or have a child or a child of a close friend playing. The numbers won't work. Ok, the horse is dead.
Aug 22nd, 2012 05:04 PM
USTennisfan
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd_serve View Post
Yes, I am of little faith. I look at details of business plans.

I have little faith in any plan, tv or otherwise, that says we are all gonna get rich, and we'll have so much money we can figure out how to split it up later. I'd also reject out of hand a plan by "professional career individuals" that does not address who bears the loses if (like the majority of new businesses) it fails in the first five years. From what the "professional career individuals" have presented the who bears the loses side is inequitable to the other stakeholders.
Then this is where I guess that it is time to best to just agree to disagree. As I try to put adjustment factors, you know what usually happens when people are trying to find a perfect balance. Like my notes that much of the risk is on the networks, when TV rights are sold, and yet most have what they believe is the correct answer, to questions that really can't be anwered...I don't know the answer, but most arguements are with certainity here.

With no give and take discussion stops.

so, then we can revisit after the fact. Let's all just wait and see!
Aug 22nd, 2012 04:38 PM
2nd_serve
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by USTennisfan View Post
Oh yee of little faith!

gotta guess someone paid to know more than you and I..you know...professional career individuals are going to give it a try. Good luck trying to stop it...which is my point

Yes, I am of little faith. I look at details of business plans.

I have little faith in any plan, tv or otherwise, that says we are all gonna get rich, and we'll have so much money we can figure out how to split it up later. I'd also reject out of hand a plan by "professional career individuals" that does not address who bears the loses if (like the majority of new businesses) it fails in the first five years. From what the "professional career individuals" have presented the who bears the loses side is inequitable to the other stakeholders.
Aug 22nd, 2012 01:39 AM
USTennisfan
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by its_a_racquet View Post
rumor is the decisions on 3rd set STB and doub's to six games on hold. Maybe it's not luck needed but rational thinking. I LOVE tennis but only watch on TV if I know one of the two players and good color from JMac or Brad Gilbert, etc. The economics of college tennis on TV are upside down.
There lies a difference. I can remember watching Melanie Oudin at age 11, and I've seen so many others of todays players coming up, that I find it interesting to follow all of the US Tennis Women in every match televised. Don't need JMac or Brad to get me to view.. I believe even college tennis on TV will be a good buy and a lot of fun to watch..Can't Wait! I just wish my alma mater was better than they are! But I will tune in, and I know my friends will too. The devil is in the details is what I've said all along. But I know too many people that watch tennis on TV, and have school pride, and I know they will watch, since they can't attend live. Lets now wait and see who gets' paid what? Becuase this is all about putting this product on TV.
Aug 22nd, 2012 12:49 AM
its_a_racquet
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

[QUOTE=..professional career individuals are going to give it a try. Good luck trying to stop it...which is my point [/QUOTE]

rumor is the decisions on 3rd set STB and doub's to six games on hold. Maybe it's not luck needed but rational thinking. I LOVE tennis but only watch on TV if I know one of the two players and good color from JMac or Brad Gilbert, etc. The economics of college tennis on TV are upside down.
Aug 22nd, 2012 12:09 AM
USTennisfan
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by spartyfan View Post
Have you been to a college tennis match. The best, other than fraternity rivalry matches, have 10-100 fans. I've been to make major Big 10 and a couple Pac 10 conference matches at UCLA. Maybe 50 people though I am told the fraternites show up for USC.

There is NO tennis audience to support college tennis on TV. You can site all the things CBS is covering but that is because there are other side deals driving it.

The NCAA could give a crap about college tennis and if they trickle a single dollar down it will go to the same four mega rich schools that make the finals. Just like they spread most of the basketball money to schools that make the Great 8 and beyond.

Lastly, note in your USTA argument that the USTA is very much opposed to this proposal.

It's bad except in that it will constrict college tennis in structure and infra-structure. All so the 50 folks on this chat can watch three matches on TV every year.

Very bad for a great sport too few appreciate. No place else do 12-16 athletes compete for 4+ hours at a high level. But that is what the sport is and you don't dummy it down so 3 matches can be on TV. Maybe the NCAA can shorten those College Baseball games to 6 innings like Little League since the CWS games seems to take 4 hours plus also.

Oh wait, you don't mess with the game just for TV.

Oh yee of little faith! Yes I have been to college tennis matches. More than you could ever imagine! Been to the NCAA also!! And do not disagree with your attendence figures. But TV is another horse! All those who can't attend watch. , that's why thet televise live sports.

But I can not as you state to profess to know that there is NO AUDIENCE until it's tried, and yes other side deals do make a difference. but have you thought that may also enter the equation...people are so funny on this forum. what do you guess the NCAA has plenty of deals and maybe some side deals too! How funny! Remember they do televise many sports...hence side deals!

You seem to think only the top 4 will prosper... hey I can't say but I would doubt your certainty.

I never said the USTA was for anything, only that that they too added more dollars by adding NEW REVENUE STREAMS by televising the qualies, but you think There's no TV audience to support college tennis... Gosh such a downer are you. Answers without facts!

gotta guess someone paid to know more than you and I..you know...professional career individuals are going to give it a try. Good luck trying to stop it...which is my point
Aug 21st, 2012 10:55 PM
spartyfan
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Have you been to a college tennis match. The best, other than fraternity rivalry matches, have 10-100 fans. I've been to make major Big 10 and a couple Pac 10 conference matches at UCLA. Maybe 50 people though I am told the fraternites show up for USC.

There is NO tennis audience to support college tennis on TV. You can site all the things CBS is covering but that is because there are other side deals driving it.

The NCAA could give a crap about college tennis and if they trickle a single dollar down it will go to the same four mega rich schools that make the finals. Just like they spread most of the basketball money to schools that make the Great 8 and beyond.

Lastly, note in your USTA argument that the USTA is very much opposed to this proposal.

It's bad except in that it will constrict college tennis in structure and infra-structure. All so the 50 folks on this chat can watch three matches on TV every year.

Very bad for a great sport too few appreciate. No place else do 12-16 athletes compete for 4+ hours at a high level. But that is what the sport is and you don't dummy it down so 3 matches can be on TV. Maybe the NCAA can shorten those College Baseball games to 6 innings like Little League since the CWS games seems to take 4 hours plus also.

Oh wait, you don't mess with the game just for TV.
Aug 21st, 2012 06:20 PM
USTennisfan
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by spartyfan View Post
TV coverage does not equal money. Often it equals coverage for virtually no rights fee. But in this case no money will trickle from the all might NCAA to tennis programs.

I look forward to seeing Stanford and Florida or UCLA annually on TV. They really need the help too.

Sadly 100 programs that don't take tennis seriously will soon look at these 'shortening the match' proposals to try and force regular season changes so their work days are shortened and simplified too. Every change to the finals ultimately leads to the same changes in the regular season.

This current NCAA committee is out of control.
The NCAA at this time doesn't do anything without money. That should be the last thing we think about. They will get paid and then the real details are in how it's split with the conferences or the individual schools.

Hey did you see CBS SportsNet is now showing 8 hours a day of TV on the US open qualies! Live like today! I am sure that adds more dollars to our USTA. And again satisfies the need for more programming of even more tennis on TV. Every Network has a sports cable division and they do PAY for programming!
Aug 21st, 2012 04:35 PM
spartyfan
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

TV coverage does not equal money. Often it equals coverage for virtually no rights fee. But in this case no money will trickle from the all might NCAA to tennis programs.

I look forward to seeing Stanford and Florida or UCLA annually on TV. They really need the help too.

Sadly 100 programs that don't take tennis seriously will soon look at these 'shortening the match' proposals to try and force regular season changes so their work days are shortened and simplified too. Every change to the finals ultimately leads to the same changes in the regular season.

This current NCAA committee is out of control.
Aug 21st, 2012 02:09 PM
USTennisfan
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3gtennis View Post
The product is important. Time to break down the match instead of just being a money is important (vs) everyone else. Doubles gets the match off to an exciting start. The first sets of singles are the lowest part of the total match. Middle of the second set and third sets after a couple of games is when you see excitement build again. In the 90's with singles first, you had nowhere near the product put out today. The product you put on TV has to be exciting and singles first has already proved to be a boring concept. TV is not interested in boring. You could have many one hour total match times if you add super tie-breakers and singles first and never play doubles.
This is good. I would agree that doubles starting the match is essential. Plus doubles has a large audience of players on the tennis club circuit that have just love to watch in most cases the only way that the are still able to play tennis.

Then the excitement builds in singles usually starting with the number one court and then shifting to each court as they enter the deciding game and staying there unless another court enters a deciding game until you get to the court that holds the match in its heads.

Fence mounted remote control cameras on each end court that tilt and pan (which on a lesser degree is being done with fixed angle cameras on live stream courts ala Stanford but with only a single baseline) . the announcers can be in front of 6 monitors and a single producer in the truck hitting the rapid camera feeds. Two camera operators in the truck handling the live remote controlled baseline cameras, and a roving sideline reporter getting the between action interviews and guess what you have an exciting event that can be produced at a fair cost to the networks.

To me this is where we have a say. That is where your input on dubs first will find ears . Help them mold the product but continue to understand the end goal is to get this product sold to the networks and make it exciting and TV friendly.

If you follow the production of pro tennis on TV. It is on a lesser degree being handled remotely. The TV channel rarely sends Lindsey to China or Baku. The sit comfortably in the US in a studio and buy the feeds and add there audio. At the slams if you follow on Direct TV all of the announcers fot each televised match court sit in an on site studio in front of a monitor for the court they are assigned, and that's why you often hear cross talk from other announcers in the background.

So college tennis can follow either model to start to reduce the expense of production costs, but you can see it is double and could be very exciting , profitable and could build the following of college tennis.
Aug 21st, 2012 05:04 AM
3gtennis
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

The product is important. Time to break down the match instead of just being a money is important (vs) everyone else. Doubles gets the match off to an exciting start. The first sets of singles are the lowest part of the total match. Middle of the second set and third sets after a couple of games is when you see excitement build again. In the 90's with singles first, you had nowhere near the product put out today. The product you put on TV has to be exciting and singles first has already proved to be a boring concept. TV is not interested in boring. You could have many one hour total match times if you add super tie-breakers and singles first and never play doubles.
Aug 21st, 2012 03:55 AM
USTennisfan
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by its_a_racquet View Post
So to be more clear, you are suggesting that there are endorsement and television deals that will generate revenue to all DI schools (not just those participating in the year-end events) that exceed expenses of that endeavor?

You are saying to 'follow the money' and it will lead you to college tennis?

This isn't so much of a "Communications Major" analysis than general business and advertising....I think you are more than optimistic on that topic......and isn't this forum intended for any/all to offer opinions?
If you follow how it is structured with similar NCAA sports the 64 teams selected into the NCAA would pool the revenue through the rounds based on results. How many D1 tennis programs would that benefit? Ah, more than today. That would be fom whichever network that signs on with the NCAA for the rights just to the NCAA tournament. Similar to March madness in college basketball or the bowl games in football.

The remaining programs would now have an incentive to improve their program so they can share in this new revenue stream.

Tier 2 and Tier 3 rights for each institution then can start to shop it's programming either individually or by conference contracts will follow once an established revenue stream gets the car rolling.

Usually that is a top down situation since they have the established history and then it's based on alumni, local intrests, etc

This is how you make a money loser a new revenue producer and start to move away from strict reliance on title IX and alumni contributions.

We have something most other womens college sports lack, a built in audience already following the massive amounts of professional WOMEN'S tennis already being televised. We have the Grand slams, Indian wells, Miami and just about half of the existing premier level events ALREADY being televised, and that as they say is the market that has been established and paid for in the US.

So now we do what others do, by bringing in the Colleges, with again a built in audience cheering for their alma mater, heck just read the passions on this forum as they follow their university favorites . Why don't you believe others want that same opportunity if they are now given the option to root for their schools in a sport they already follow (that TV already markets -duh)

So it's in that vane I keep coming back to how can anybody not see that the opportunity costs fat outweigh a third set super tiebreaker?

And I don't put anything into the players opinion, because unfortunately, the powers that be wont care if they think they can make this work.
Aug 21st, 2012 03:25 AM
its_a_racquet
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by USTennisfan View Post
Let's see 7 of the highest paid women professional athletes play TENNIS, yes WTA. Not one is in the WNBA. Follow the money and you find endorsement dollars. How many women still playing basketball? Golf and Tennis are one and two in audience participation sports currently promoted.

I love everyone's opinions on the subject. Don't you think the networks look at that and make offers that match what they perceive to be the potential... But you'd think we have a bunch of communications majors on this forum. We are so quick to poo poo this without understanding they believe they will expand the sport and interest in it.

But hey again when budgets tighten and these schools have to make cuts in sports, I am sure all of us will send in checks to match the loss of revenue they expect to make. Because we are so so so sure it won't work. So funny!
So to be more clear, you are suggesting that there are endorsement and television deals that will generate revenue to all DI schools (not just those participating in the year-end events) that exceed expenses of that endeavor?

You are saying to 'follow the money' and it will lead you to college tennis?

This isn't so much of a "Communications Major" analysis than general business and advertising....I think you are more than optimistic on that topic......and isn't this forum intended for any/all to offer opinions?
Aug 21st, 2012 01:57 AM
USTennisfan
Re: Rule Changes All About Money - TV Money

Quote:
Originally Posted by spartyfan View Post
Ask the WNBA says about TV guaranteeing success? NOT! The WNBA is bleeding money and has terrible ratings.

This pursuit of TV is a joke. There is no market but it seems as if they will damage the sport in a desperate attempt to be something it is not.

Let's see 7 of the highest paid women professional athletes play TENNIS, yes WTA. Not one is in the WNBA. Follow the money and you find endorsement dollars. How many women still playing basketball? Golf and Tennis are one and two in audience participation sports currently promoted.

I love everyone's opinions on the subject. Don't you think the networks look at that and make offers that match what they perceive to be the potential... But you'd think we have a bunch of communications majors on this forum. We are so quick to poo poo this without understanding they believe they will expand the sport and interest in it.

But hey again when budgets tighten and these schools have to make cuts in sports, I am sure all of us will send in checks to match the loss of revenue they expect to make. Because we are so so so sure it won't work. So funny!
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome