Jump to content

Dick Ebersol resigning from NBC Sports


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Haha, the answer is on NBC for crying out loud, you don't know that? Between NBC and NBC's Universal Sports channel, swimming has been on more than it's ever been. the Olympic Games, Olympic Trials, U.S. Nationals, Pan Pacific Championships, the FINA World Aquatics Championships, FINA Short Course Swimming Championships, the USA Swimming Grand Prix Series, the FINA/ARENA World Cup Series (though Phelps specifically has not competed in the World Cup), all broadcast on either NBC or Universal Sports.

I'm well aware of that, I watched every afternoon of coverage of the FINA World Championships in `09, including all the days on Universal Sports that were in lovely standard definition. Most people probably don't know that Universal Sports even exist, even those people who were glued to their TVs for every last stroke Phelps swam in Beijing. Let's hope and pray that this year's FINA championships are at least on Versus so I can watch it in HD (and since I'll be asleep for most of it since they're in Asia this year, you can bet I'll be DVRing it.. whether or not I watch the commercials is a different story).

Link to post
Share on other sites

For your unclear brain, I remember when they STARTED. I don't really care whether they started 3 or 2 hours or 16 minutes earlier because I AM ONLY concerned with what I am seeing!

Quaker mentioned a 3-hour delay...which I KNOW and understand. So therefore, I was merely clarifying the matter based on that calculation of his that the actual Opening in vancouver must've started at 6:00pm to get the 9:00pm primetime broadcast for the East Coast -- NOT THAT IT REALLY MATTERS TO ME Then or NOW!!

Whining and speculating on when it is happening live, doesn't alter my then-and-there moment. DUH!!

Get your head out of your pithole.

Alright, in an effort to attempt to save this train wreck of a discussion...

baron, for someone who has posted 27,000 times in an Olympics forum.. you didn't KNOW that what you were watching was delayed? That's wonderful that you had a then-and-there moment for something that was on a 3-hour delay, but I find that astonishing that you didn't know (not being aware is 1 thing or not caring is 1 thing, but considering how much has been written about talked about with the tape delays from Vancouver, I can't imagine you would have missed all that). I think Dick Ebersol is going to give you a call at some point and thank you. His theory for the past 20 years of covering the Olympics has been to show them plausibly live and you clearly played right into that. I'm well aware when I'm watching something that isn't live. Not that I care for the most part, but that's another story altogether. For you to tell another poster "well, I think the Closing Ceremony may have been live" when you yourself live in the Pacific Time Zone and then accuse him (or in this case his parents) of not knowing the schedule is pretty bush league.

OneTime, should be noted.. the reason that final day's schedule played out the way it did is because NBC on the West coast showed the hockey game live at Noon PT, then the tape of the cross-country from 3pm-6pm (which got shown live on the East coast but would have been at 9am on the West) and then the delayed primetime show at 7pm. Call it scheduling arrogance if you want, but if the network and the affiliates believe they'll get more viewers doing it that way than showing everything live, those network assholes are going to laugh all the way to the bank on that one (and the first person to bring up that NBC lost money on Vancouver is going to get a nice long post from me explaining why that happened because we shouldn't have to go over this again).

Link to post
Share on other sites

baron, for someone who has posted 27,000 times in an Olympics forum.. you didn't KNOW that what you were watching was delayed? That's wonderful that you had a then-and-there moment for something that was on a 3-hour delay, but I find that astonishing that you didn't know (not being aware is 1 thing or not caring is 1 thing, but considering how much has been written about talked about with the tape delays from Vancouver, I can't imagine you would have missed all that). I think Dick Ebersol is going to give you a call at some point and thank you. His theory for the past 20 years of covering the Olympics has been to show them plausibly live and you clearly played right into that. I'm well aware when I'm watching something that isn't live. Not that I care for the most part, but that's another story altogether. For you to tell another poster "well, I think the Closing Ceremony may have been live" when you yourself live in the Pacific Time Zone and then accuse him (or in this case his parents) of not knowing the schedule is pretty bush league.

Whatever...I don't really need a lecture from you or your scurrilous insinuations on whether it's LIVE or not, because frankly, Bernice, I don't give a damn. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever...I don't really need a lecture from you or your scurrilous insinuations on whether it's LIVE or not, because frankly, Bernice, I don't give a damn. :P

Sure baron, call me names and use big fancy words (studying for the SATs are you :lol:) and see if I care. Still not as funny as 1 blog where several people started calling me an NBC shill the instant I had the first nice thing to say about their coverage. I wasn't the one here who started cursing at another poster. Again, you're the one who has felt the need to post here 27,000 times and then gets on someone else for not knowing someone when, by your own admission, you weren't sure. I've had plenty of discussions here and elsewhere about television and the Olympics, but most of them are based on opinions. This was based on FACT. You got that FACT wrong and then try to justify that by saying it doesn't matter when another poster was explaining how it did matter. If you didn't remember in your "then-and-there moment" fine, but then don't say "they may have started an hour later" when you "KNOW and understand" the 3-hour delay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm well aware of that, I watched every afternoon of coverage of the FINA World Championships in `09, including all the days on Universal Sports that were in lovely standard definition. Most people probably don't know that Universal Sports even exist, even those people who were glued to their TVs for every last stroke Phelps swam in Beijing. Let's hope and pray that this year's FINA championships are at least on Versus so I can watch it in HD (and since I'll be asleep for most of it since they're in Asia this year, you can bet I'll be DVRing it.. whether or not I watch the commercials is a different story).

No, it's not going to be on Versus, it's going to be on Universal Sports again. That's what NBC created UniSports for, to be a channel devoted to Olympic Sports. Screw Comcast and their Versus channel. A) it's not dedicated to Olympic Sports, and B) Universal Sports is available on free over the air digital TV, Channel 4.4 here in New York, and that is how I watch it, because, as I said before, I don't subscribe to cable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not going to be on Versus, it's going to be on Universal Sports again. That's what NBC created UniSports for, to be a channel devoted to Olympic Sports. Screw Comcast and their Versus channel. A) it's not dedicated to Olympic Sports, and B) Universal Sports is available on free over the air digital TV, Channel 4.4 here in New York, and that is how I watch it, because, as I said before, I don't subscribe to cable.

I get it's your personal preference, but NBC and Comcast don't make decisions based on what YOU want. Universal Sports reaches 63 million homes and doesn't broadcast in HD. Versus is in over 70 million homes and is in HD. Who cares if they're not dedicated to Olympic sports, at least they broadcast in HD. How important and valuable could Universal Sports be if the only Olympic programming they had from Vancouver was 5 hours worth of news and features shows at the beginning of the day and not 1 minute of live event coverage. You may say screw Comcast and Versus, but get ready for them to air a ton of coverage from London so you might want to subscribe to cable then.

Oh, and the 2009 IAAF World Championships weren't on Universal Sports.. they were on Versus. And that was before the NBComcast merger. I assume they'll be on Versus again this time, and again, it wouldn't surprise me in the least for Comcast and NBC to put the FINA World Championships there. I don't know 1 way or the other, but don't say matter-of-factly they'll be on Universal Sports just because that's what they did last time. It's a brand new ballgame now that NBC and Comcast are all under the same umbrella.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it's your personal preference, but NBC and Comcast don't make decisions based on what YOU want. Universal Sports reaches 63 million homes and doesn't broadcast in HD. Versus is in over 70 million homes and is in HD. Who cares if they're not dedicated to Olympic sports, at least they broadcast in HD. How important and valuable could Universal Sports be if the only Olympic programming they had from Vancouver was 5 hours worth of news and features shows at the beginning of the day and not 1 minute of live event coverage. You may say screw Comcast and Versus, but get ready for them to air a ton of coverage from London so you might want to subscribe to cable then.

Oh, and the 2009 IAAF World Championships weren't on Universal Sports.. they were on Versus. And that was before the NBComcast merger. I assume they'll be on Versus again this time, and again, it wouldn't surprise me in the least for Comcast and NBC to put the FINA World Championships there. I don't know 1 way or the other, but don't say matter-of-factly they'll be on Universal Sports just because that's what they did last time. It's a brand new ballgame now that NBC and Comcast are all under the same umbrella.

It's going to be on UniSports because it's already been announced on their website. And, as I said earlier, I'll subscribe to cable when the olympic games are on and I'll drop cable when they are over. But I doubt any Olympic coverage will be on Versus unless Comcrap makes it available to other cable systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and P.S.

I really enjoyed UniSports Olympic news and review shows, particularly "Meet the Olympic Press". I hope they do that again for London.

P.P.S. HD is nice, but I own a 13" color tube television. I do like it to be in widescreen though. As you can tell, television is not that important to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be on UniSports because it's already been announced on their website. And, as I said earlier, I'll subscribe to cable when the olympic games are on and I'll drop cable when they are over. But I doubt any Olympic coverage will be on Versus unless Comcrap makes it available to other cable systems.

That's exactly why they're going to put Olympic coverage there, to leverage more cable systems to pick up the channel. Right now I believe it's in about 75 million homes, they'll want to get that number up and the Olympics is the perfect way to do it. And remember.. Dick Ebersol won't be in charge come London. It's all the Comcast guys for the most part that will be calling the shots, so you can bet your bottom dollar that Versus will probably be a big part of their London coverage.

Oh and P.S.

I really enjoyed UniSports Olympic news and review shows, particularly "Meet the Olympic Press". I hope they do that again for London.

P.P.S. HD is nice, but I own a 13" color tube television. I do like it to be in widescreen though. As you can tell, television is not that important to me.

I don't see why they wouldn't. With so much more content available on the Summer Olympics, maybe they'd use it for actual event coverage in addition to or instead of the news and studio stuff.

And yes, HD is extremely nice. So are televisions larger than 13 inches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us do...some of us count.

You posting "Boring.........." probably doesn't qualify as doing. Nor was your response to the Ebersol news with "I'm surprised this post wasn't that Ebersol was gay or not."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor was your response to the Ebersol news with "I'm surprised this post wasn't that Ebersol was gay or not."

Obviously you didn't follow the thread that preceded that comment as you didn't with the live-taped Vancouver B/S. That comment followed 3 successive new threads by OneTimeOnly (what an oxymorom) about gay athletes and gay-themed topix. That's the only reason that remark was made. BUt obviously, it made an impression on u. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you didn't follow the thread that preceded that comment as you didn't with the live-taped Vancouver B/S. That comment followed 3 successive new threads by OneTimeOnly (what an oxymorom) about gay athletes and gay-themed topix. That's the only reason that remark was made. BUt obviously, it made an impression on u. :rolleyes:

Yea, I figured there had to be some sort of history there, so I definitely don't want to jump in the middle of that. Didn't make an impression on me at all, but it comes up on page 1 of the thread, so it's hard to miss.

I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you here (or anyone else for that matter), even if that's already going on for you. I don't care, I can skip over those posts. I appreciate sarcasm and humor as much as the next guy, I just wonder sometimes when it almost seems like you're trying to side-track the thread when it's tough to tell if you're being serious or trying to be funny. We need to know which personality of baron we're getting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, my big concern about NBC/Comcast losing the Olympics would be a loss of value of the Games. How do we know that ABC/ESPN or Fox would treat the Games any differently than any other sporting event? For all we know, ESPN could squeeze in swimming heats on ESPN2 while a repeat of last night's MLB game is on the main channel. Not bagging baseball at all, just making a point. Same with Fox Sports, given how much of their sports coverage these days is regional, how are they planning on programming the Games on the main Fox channel, given they only have experience doing MLB or NFL and that's on weekends only?

I'm just a fan of the Olympics and have been watching them for a VERY long time now and I would like to see them continue to be presented in a way that I can watch them that is respectful to the prestige of the Games. Speaking for myself, I do not mind fluff on an athlete from southern Sri Lanka that I have never heard of or may see again because it expands my view of the world and gives me someone to root for besides yea good ol' Red, White and Blue. Same with exposure to new sports: I'd never watched curling in my life before Vancouver and found myself absolutely enthralled by the sport even if the USA got killed and it wasn't because of the Norwegians' flashy threads either.

I like to think I'm a better person and more world-wise because of the Games, so that makes them a treasure to me. I hope whomever gets the broadcasting rights sees them the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is the Olympic games have lost their prestige, mostly through over commercialization which can be partly attributed to the US, but almost all of it comes from the suits in Switzerland. The other part is that American's are just more interested in our own domestic sports rather than the sports in the Olympic stable. With the exception of the NCAA, which if you live in Big Ten country you can see on the Big Ten Network produced by Fox Sports, they show the whole program of Big10 sports.

The networks are looking at this and any other acquisition they make based upon what will bring in the most money rather than the big flashy prestigious events anyway, so if indeed Fox Sports gets the Olympic games and they run up against some domestic game schedule conflict would you blame them for shunting the Olympic event off to cable, while their main money maker is taking place. The actual events have been great ratings grabbers which is why Disney and Fox are interested, and we have to remember cable ratings are fractional compared to OTA ratings, so the boost that the Olympic games will bring to cable will be monumental even if they pale in comparison to OTA.

Whether we like it or not, in this competitive environment the guys in Switzerland don't offer as compelling a product as they formerly have, when NFL rights are in the billions already and they offer 6 months of events yearly, how can the IOC compete 2 weeks every 2 years, and with no prospect of anything domestic for a generation or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, my big concern about NBC/Comcast losing the Olympics would be a loss of value of the Games. How do we know that ABC/ESPN or Fox would treat the Games any differently than any other sporting event? For all we know, ESPN could squeeze in swimming heats on ESPN2 while a repeat of last night's MLB game is on the main channel. Not bagging baseball at all, just making a point. Same with Fox Sports, given how much of their sports coverage these days is regional, how are they planning on programming the Games on the main Fox channel, given they only have experience doing MLB or NFL and that's on weekends only?

I completely agree. NBC has always treated the Olympics as its marquee event. The only other event that receives huge attention on NBC is the NFL. ESPN and FOX have so many other sports properties that it will be impossible for them to give the Olympics the same treatment that NBC has given them. Not to mention, I doubt either network will be able to devote the same amount of coverage to the Olympic Trials, which is essential in building up viewership for the Olympics. We'll see if NBC still gives the Olympics the same amount of attention now that Ebersol is gone, but it's certainly not going to be any better on ESPN or FOX.

The networks are looking at this and any other acquisition they make based upon what will bring in the most money rather than the big flashy prestigious events anyway, so if indeed Fox Sports gets the Olympic games and they run up against some domestic game schedule conflict would you blame them for shunting the Olympic event off to cable, while their main money maker is taking place. The actual events have been great ratings grabbers which is why Disney and Fox are interested, and we have to remember cable ratings are fractional compared to OTA ratings, so the boost that the Olympic games will bring to cable will be monumental even if they pale in comparison to OTA.

Actually, cable ratings now match or even exceed over-the-air ratings. Many of the most-watched TV shows and sports events are on cable. Monday Night Football has almost as many viewers on ESPN as it did on ABC. The BCS switched to ESPN this year with little decline in the ratings. My biggest concern isn't the switch from OTA to cable, but rather the switch from broadcasting events for the first time in primetime versus showing them live at 3am or 9am or whenever. Regardless of which network is broadcasting the Games, they won't get much viewership at 3am, period. NBC learned its lesson on this back in 1988, when they showed many marquee events live in the late night (12:30am-2:30am Eastern) and morning (7am-10am Eastern) broadcasts. The ratings were lower than expected for both the live broadcasts and the primetime broadcasts, and NBC ended up losing money on the Seoul Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So that the Olympics don't lose their appeal to U.S. market, I think they should be played everyday--both summer and winter--somewhere on the globe!! :lol::lol: Obviously, there are ENOUGH cities and towns around the globe wanting to host them. Plus, each week can have the "86th Anniversary of the Antwerp 1920 Games" or some such excuse... With 30 summer editions already played by next year; and then 22 for Winter -- why, that's almost 52 weeks of new (and old) Olympic programming!!

The USOC might be right after all in wanting to have a 24/7 exclusive Olympics station!!

Imagine, brand new Opening & Closing ceremonies every week!! :lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To matt, GoNutz, and Barcelona's points (meaning the serious posts, not the one trying to be funny.. yes baron, I can tell you're trying to be humorous there, key word there being 'trying'), here's my take and I'm glad to see people who understand the NBC way rather than just to find flaws in it...

Personally, my big concern about NBC/Comcast losing the Olympics would be a loss of value of the Games. How do we know that ABC/ESPN or Fox would treat the Games any differently than any other sporting event? For all we know, ESPN could squeeze in swimming heats on ESPN2 while a repeat of last night's MLB game is on the main channel. Not bagging baseball at all, just making a point. Same with Fox Sports, given how much of their sports coverage these days is regional, how are they planning on programming the Games on the main Fox channel, given they only have experience doing MLB or NFL and that's on weekends only?

I'm just a fan of the Olympics and have been watching them for a VERY long time now and I would like to see them continue to be presented in a way that I can watch them that is respectful to the prestige of the Games. Speaking for myself, I do not mind fluff on an athlete from southern Sri Lanka that I have never heard of or may see again because it expands my view of the world and gives me someone to root for besides yea good ol' Red, White and Blue. Same with exposure to new sports: I'd never watched curling in my life before Vancouver and found myself absolutely enthralled by the sport even if the USA got killed and it wasn't because of the Norwegians' flashy threads either.

The problem with the networks is that they're asked to invest a billion dollars in an event that could be wildly successful or completely fall flat based. When Tom Brady got injured and missed an entire season a few years ago, it was a lot different than when Michelle Kwan couldn't compete in Torino. And the question I ask with ESPN and Fox is just how much is the Olympics going to add for them. People have told me 'Sochi won't be a problem for ESPN, just show everything live and then they have all the time they need for basketball in the evening.' Well, if that's the case, then what is their priority, is it the Olympics or basketball? How much revenue is ESPN going to generate from a live Olympics if they don't shove their college basketball aside (which would alienate their fans to be sure) for more Olympic coverage. A lot of people viewed the Ebersol resignation as a signal that NBC wasn't that interested in the Olympics. Doesn't make a difference. All they need is to want it more and be willing to pay more for it than ESPN or Fox and based on what those 2 are planning on presenting, I just can't see how they expect to be able to generate more revenue than NBC has been able to.

The networks are looking at this and any other acquisition they make based upon what will bring in the most money rather than the big flashy prestigious events anyway, so if indeed Fox Sports gets the Olympic games and they run up against some domestic game schedule conflict would you blame them for shunting the Olympic event off to cable, while their main money maker is taking place. The actual events have been great ratings grabbers which is why Disney and Fox are interested, and we have to remember cable ratings are fractional compared to OTA ratings, so the boost that the Olympic games will bring to cable will be monumental even if they pale in comparison to OTA.

Whether we like it or not, in this competitive environment the guys in Switzerland don't offer as compelling a product as they formerly have, when NFL rights are in the billions already and they offer 6 months of events yearly, how can the IOC compete 2 weeks every 2 years, and with no prospect of anything domestic for a generation or more.

Here's the thing to remember though.. some of those sports events, especially the NFL, are loss leaders for the networks. They lose a lot of money but can justify that expense because of what it does for their bottom line. They're not about to send a big event to cable or else how could they justify the money they'll have spent on the Olympics. Fox's issue would be how do they handle the Super Bowl that year (which is scheduled to take place less than a week before the Olympics begin) and then getting everyone over to Russia. Obviously if the Olympics conflicted with football, they wouldn't even be looking at Sochi. The Olympics do provide a short burst of strong ratings, something NBC has desperately needed when they could get it. I'm not sure how much that helps Fox, already doing so well in the ratings, especially when it means pre-empting shows like American Idol in the middle of a sweeps month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree. NBC has always treated the Olympics as its marquee event. The only other event that receives huge attention on NBC is the NFL. ESPN and FOX have so many other sports properties that it will be impossible for them to give the Olympics the same treatment that NBC has given them. Not to mention, I doubt either network will be able to devote the same amount of coverage to the Olympic Trials, which is essential in building up viewership for the Olympics. We'll see if NBC still gives the Olympics the same amount of attention now that Ebersol is gone, but it's certainly not going to be any better on ESPN or FOX.

They will, there's not a doubt in my mind about that. Versus has shown a ton of horse racing coverage in conjunction with NBC's Triple Crown horse races, so clearly they see that as a viable outlet for additional coverage around big events. Remember now that Ebersol is gone, this is Comcast's show. They'll want to prop up their sports network as best they can, especially so they can attempt to rival ESPN. And Comcast being a cable provider knows the value of content which is exactly why keeping the Olympics (and just as important, keeping it away from a competitor) is still going to be a priority for them

Actually, cable ratings now match or even exceed over-the-air ratings. Many of the most-watched TV shows and sports events are on cable. Monday Night Football has almost as many viewers on ESPN as it did on ABC. The BCS switched to ESPN this year with little decline in the ratings. My biggest concern isn't the switch from OTA to cable, but rather the switch from broadcasting events for the first time in primetime versus showing them live at 3am or 9am or whenever. Regardless of which network is broadcasting the Games, they won't get much viewership at 3am, period. NBC learned its lesson on this back in 1988, when they showed many marquee events live in the late night (12:30am-2:30am Eastern) and morning (7am-10am Eastern) broadcasts. The ratings were lower than expected for both the live broadcasts and the primetime broadcasts, and NBC ended up losing money on the Seoul Olympics.

Cable ratings for a lot of events still lag behind that on the networks. Ratings for NFL games on CBS, Fox, and NBC are still well ahead of what ESPN gets. Certain events translate over to cable better than others, but ESPN is a male-oriented sports network. So take programming like the Olympics that appeals to a female demographic and the ratings will drop pretty drastically if you send it over to cable. I've made that exact same point many times before about 1988. It wasn't even so much that they were broadcasting at odd hours (remember that they got a lot of key event finals moved to US primetime, included most of the big track & field events) but more that they were trying to appeal to the wrong audience. That's exactly the mistake ESPN is going to make and it'll only be worse with a Winter Olympics 9 hours ahead of the East coast of the United States. I've been saying it for a while now and my feelings haven't changed.. an ESPN Sochi Olympics has epic failure written all over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.. yes baron, I can tell you're trying to be humorous there, key word there being 'trying'),

All heart, rn't you? 1st u complain about NOT knowing which personality...so I put in all the emoticons to make sure. So generous... <_<

But it IS POSSIBLE to have 24/7 programming of both NEW & OLD Olympic programming. I'm sure it can be done!! Maybe Dick Ebersol might be the one to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say this, but here is one potential problem for anyone bidding: at least one of the Games, the WOG in Sochi, is almost guaranteed to be a loss Games because a.) it's an unknown area for the US television markets(remember, no US network televised the Moscow Games beyond highlights because of the boycott) and b.) aside from maybe Apolo Ono and Lindsey Vohn, I am not sure how many "stories" there are for these Games.

Now, the IOC knows this I suspect and will try one of two strategies: shine the apple that is Rio up real nice and hope they get a big bite for it or hope that the bidders might be more interested in going for the 4 games deal rather than 2 games deal. True, it will cost more, but getting two SOGs may help defray any losses incumbered by Sochi or whomever 2018 goes to.

Of course, that theory collapses if Munich gets 2018, but that's beside the point. Then again, I also wonder that whatever network gets the contract might have any influence on where 2018 and 2020 head next. Not unheard of, I am sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...