ESPN Coverage

[GuTO2]

ESPN IS A COMPLETELY JOKE!

just two games per day in ESPN+ channel (who have this ESPN channel? WTF)

im very mad with this.

 

[GuTO2]

please guys, lets make a list of websites that will coverage the games!!!

fiba.com will show? anyone???

 

[CHBB2]

That point was addressing this



The point is when ESPN did the bare minimum with Soccer in the mid to late 90s it still got ratings. They saw potential for growth and then started shoving it down people's throats to great success. Even with all the American star power the FIBA World Championships have never been able to come close in ratings because the average American basketball fan thinks it's a third tier competition, and honestly so long as the US wins by 20+ per game it will sadly remain that way. In other words it's comparing Apples to Oranges.

Also as you were correct to mention it also helps when the tournament starts during the year. The FIFA world cup occurs during the dog days of Baseball's summer. The FIBA world cup is starting on the same day as the first Saturday of college football, the September Baseball pennant chases, with the NFL officially starting before the tournament is through.

I will however concede the point regarding the treatment of MLS (and in addition NHL) by NBC. They have done a far superior than ESPN in that respect and if nothing else even if they didn't increase coverage they would at least have a better commentary crew.

But you didn't actually make a point. You said something that you were claiming contradicts what I said to the point that it makes my point "moot" but that's not the case.

That's not a point though. Basketball is a growing sport that before the Dream Team was nowhere near the level it is now. Soccer had a huge head start on it, and didn't need the promotion level it's gotten from ABC/ESPN. ESPN is a lazy company that only picks up what are proven commodities and it eventually makes them so valueless that other, more innovative networks pick them up and restore their former glory. ESPN treated MLS like a joke and NBC capitalized on it by turning MLS into a major sport in the US, only a tier below hockey, which is another sport that ESPN treated like a joke and NBC turned into a powerhouse. Then once MLS was established, NBC let ESPN outbid them and picked up the Premier League, along with F1. ESPN on the other hand stuck with "proven" sports like NASCAR that have no potential to grow whatsoever. ESPN only got the FIFA World Cup because it had the most money and power at the time.

I agree with you by the way that CBS/TNT would be better, if they gave the Tournament the same treatment they give the NCAA Tournament, but I don't think they would as they're similar to ESPN in not being very innovative or wanting to grow events.

The 2010 World Championships was a watershed moment for basketball globally, as was the 2012 Olympics, and ESPN is stopping all of that in its tracks with the way they're handling this year's World Championships which has the potential to be an even bigger watershed moment. Team USA's games should be on ABC with heavy promotion, not ESPN or ESPN2. Even if the tournament happens in July-August next time around like it should, I guarantee you ESPN would do the exact same thing.

How can that not bother you as a basketball fan? How can you defend them?

 

[CHBB2]

ESPN IS A COMPLETELY JOKE!

just two games per day in ESPN+ channel (who have this ESPN channel? WTF)

im very mad with this.

Exactly! Almost every game that is televised, is on NBATV, which many of us don't have.

Luckily, the contract with FIBA currently only runs into 2015. Let's hope NBC wins the bid against them for the next contract.


Not to mention, ESPN relegates Euroleague to ESPN3. What a joke. Imagine what NBC Sports would do with Euroleague. They'd give it the MLS treatment.

 

[GuTO2]

Exactly! Almost every game that is televised, is on NBATV, which many of us don't have.

Luckily, the contract with FIBA currently only runs into 2015. Let's hope NBC wins the bid against them for the next contract.


Not to mention, ESPN relegates Euroleague to ESPN3. What a joke. Imagine what NBC Sports would do with Euroleague. They'd give it the MLS treatment.

we have ESPN and ESPN Brasil and ESPN +

20% of people which have ESPN and ESPN Brasil have this ESPN+, almost no one have this ESPN+.

3 channels and just 2 games per day, big joke. Im very mad with this piece of shit.

NBATV we can find links on internet, i hope.

http://www.interbasket.net/forums/s...ch-FIBA-WC-on-Internet-where-Lets-make-a-list

 

[Dtown2]

Basketball is a growing sport that before the Dream Team was nowhere near the level it is now.

Globally this is 100% true, but nationally probably not, so I can't see how this would effect ESPN's outlook when it comes to presenting the tournament in the United States.

Soccer had a huge head start on it, and didn't need the promotion level it's gotten from ABC/ESPN.

This statement depends on how you look at it. If we're limiting it to the world cups this is true, but the Olympics and even the Dream Team were established before Soccer had any foothold in the country.

ESPN is a lazy company that only picks up what are proven commodities and it eventually makes them so valueless that other, more innovative networks pick them up and restore their former glory.

I agree with the first part ESPN doesn't really promote sports so much acquire already successful sports, but 'restoring sports to their former glory' is inaccurate. It wasn't ESPN's fault the NHL lost prestige, two NHL labor stoppages did that, and the MLS had no former glory to speak of.

ESPN treated MLS like a joke and NBC capitalized on it by turning MLS into a major sport in the US, only a tier below hockey, which is another sport that ESPN treated like a joke and NBC turned into a powerhouse. Then once MLS was established, NBC let ESPN outbid them and picked up the Premier League, along with F1. ESPN on the other hand stuck with "proven" sports like NASCAR that have no potential to grow whatsoever. ESPN only got the FIFA World Cup because it had the most money and power at the time.

I wouldn't call MLS a powerhouse just yet, successful/stable/and growing yes, but not a powerhouse. Otherwise I agree with all this.

The 2010 World Championships was a watershed moment for basketball globally, as was the 2012 Olympics, and ESPN is stopping all of that in its tracks with the way they're handling this year's World Championships which has the potential to be an even bigger watershed moment.

ESPN had the rights to the 2010 World Championships as well, by all accounts they didn't consider it a watershed moment nationally, and it's tough to argue that.

Global appeal is fantastic but ESPN's primary concern is nationally because that determines ratings, and in terms of the United States interest in international basketball hasn't grown much since the days of the dream team if anything it's declined because the novelty factor wore off. Hardcore basketball fans will always tune in, but the casual fan has a complete disinterest.

Team USA's games should be on ABC with heavy promotion, not ESPN or ESPN2. Even if the tournament happens in July-August next time around like it should, I guarantee you ESPN would do the exact same thing.

Well first unless you're the NFL or College Football the era of heavy promotion on a national network is dead save for usually the Finals of said sport. This is pretty much across the board if you didn't have cable you couldn't watch 95% of the MLB, NBA, or NHL playoffs. Soccer's team USA played the bulk of their games on ESPN and ESPN 2 as well so it's hard to take issue with that.

You can also bet if NBC held the rights most of the games would be NBCSN which is in fewer homes than ESPN.

How can that not bother you as a basketball fan? How can you defend them?

Because none of the above effects whether I can watch the games. Promotion, hype, 'shoving the event down our throats', only affects casual fans. I have long since stopped caring if casual fans watch or not.

Do I care games are going to be on ESPN/ESPN2/ or ESPN3 rather than ABC? Nope. If they're going to have the same commentary team, they're both going to be shown in HD, both going to shown live, and I have easy access to them so why would it bother me?

Now if I didn't have cable or wasn't online yeah I'd be mad, but everything (save the NFL/College Football) is moving to cable and online now so I can't single them out for that.

Could they hype it more? Yeah you're right about that.

Would I prefer TNT or NBC have it? Yep they have better commentators/production values.

Does that make me mad? No it's more of a slight annoyance than anything.

 

[CHBB2]

Globally this is 100% true, but nationally probably not, so I can't see how this would effect ESPN's outlook when it comes to presenting the tournament in the United States.




This statement depends on how you look at it. If we're limiting it to the world cups this is true, but the Olympics and even the Dream Team were established before Soccer had any foothold in the country.




I agree with the first part ESPN doesn't really promote sports so much acquire already successful sports, but 'restoring sports to their former glory' is inaccurate. It wasn't ESPN's fault the NHL lost prestige, two NHL labor stoppages did that, and the MLS had no former glory to speak of.




I wouldn't call MLS a powerhouse just yet, successful/stable/and growing yes, but not a powerhouse. Otherwise I agree with all this.




ESPN had the rights to the 2010 World Championships as well, by all accounts they didn't consider it a watershed moment nationally, and it's tough to argue that.

Global appeal is fantastic but ESPN's primary concern is nationally because that determines ratings, and in terms of the United States interest in international basketball hasn't grown much since the days of the dream team if anything it's declined because the novelty factor wore off. Hardcore basketball fans will always tune in, but the casual fan has a complete disinterest.




Well first unless you're the NFL or College Football the era of heavy promotion on a national network is dead save for usually the Finals of said sport. This is pretty much across the board if you didn't have cable you couldn't watch 95% of the MLB, NBA, or NHL playoffs. Soccer's team USA played the bulk of their games on ESPN and ESPN 2 as well so it's hard to take issue with that.

You can also bet if NBC held the rights most of the games would be NBCSN which is in fewer homes than ESPN.



Because none of the above effects whether I can watch the games. Promotion, hype, 'shoving the event down our throats', only affects casual fans. I have long since stopped caring if casual fans watch or not.

Do I care games are going to be on ESPN/ESPN2/ or ESPN3 rather than ABC? Nope. If they're going to have the same commentary team, they're both going to be shown in HD, both going to shown live, and I have easy access to them so why would it bother me?

Now if I didn't have cable or wasn't online yeah I'd be mad, but everything (save the NFL/College Football) is moving to cable and online now so I can't single them out for that.

Could they hype it more? Yeah you're right about that.

Would I prefer TNT or NBC have it? Yep they have better commentators/production values.

Does that make me mad? No it's more of a slight annoyance than anything.

It's not just the US. ESPN has rights in multiple countries. Also, you're still not getting the point. FIBA needs to be promoted like crazy in the US in order for ESPN to really make any kind of money off of it or have it be valuable and yet they aren't.

Not true. Soccer has been in the US since the time when baseball was America's past-time and it really gained a foothold during the NASL days. Basketball on the other hand wasn't on the global scene on anywhere near the level soccer is until the Dream Team.

I wasn't referring to MLS or NHL. I was referring to things like primetime football, college sports, just to name a few.

The NHL is a powerhouse, not MLS. Do you not read the actual sentences that I type?

It doesn't matter what ESPN considers or doesn't consider something to be, and again you don't seem to grasp that them having broadcast rights is about more than just a national level. Furthermore, do you have any idea just how many immigrants we have in this country who haven't been exposed to our basketball consistently?

But ESPN isn't broadcasting a "national" event. You do realize, for starters, that many NBA players or prospects are on other teams than Team USA?

What are you talking about? Sports programming has never at any time in history been bigger and more sought after than it is now. You're comparing not showing LOCAL basketball teams that have their rights owned by LOCAL sports networks to not showing the most important event in international basketball? Seriously?

No they didn't. They played on ABC.

NBCSN isn't in fewer homes than ESPN. It's a channel that comes with most packages, and I guarantee you not only would every US game be on NBC but the other games would be on MSNBC, E!, etc like they did with the Olympics. Unlike ESPN, NBC knows how to grow things now that Comcast is running the show.

It affects a lot more than that. Also, you seem to be forgetting that ESPN has a network in many more markets than just the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_International

No it isn't. Only ESPN's coverage is moving that way. CBS to an extent, maybe, but mostly ESPN. NBCSports spreads their coverage over multiple networks, especially when it's a major event.

You're missing the much larger picture here. The World Championships needs to get bigger in the US in order to get bigger globally. We are basketball's home country, its ground zero. Can you ever imagine the UK treating the World Cup this way? No, and if they tried to they would be rightfully publicly shamed for it. Yet you're trying to act like ESPN doing that to the only basketball event that is on the level of March Madness is somehow okay, acceptable, and even defensible.

 

[Dtown2]

It's not just the US. ESPN has rights in multiple countries.

Fair enough I can only speak to their knowledge in the United States.

Also, you're still not getting the point. FIBA needs to be promoted like crazy in the US in order for ESPN to really make any kind of money off of it or have it be valuable and yet they aren't.

Right or wrong it's a gamble they aren't willing to take because they don't think it has much room to grow in the United States.

Not true. Soccer has been in the US since the time when baseball was America's past-time and it really gained a foothold during the NASL days. Basketball on the other hand wasn't on the global scene on anywhere near the level soccer is until the Dream Team.

I was clearly talking about the United States where there is no comparison between the two.

The Dream Team was more established than the US Soccer team which had only qualified for the world cup once in 40 years by 1992. NASL's foothold is overstated as the league died in the mid 80s and there wasn't any demand for soccer to return until the mid 90s. Even then the MLS struggled until very very recently.

I wasn't referring to MLS or NHL. I was referring to things like primetime football, college sports, just to name a few.

In that case your comment makes no sense NBC only has one primetime game a week that hardly did anything to restore the sport to 'former glories', and they don't have any exclusive contracts with any major programs aside form Notre Dame which they've had for decades.

The NHL is a powerhouse, not MLS. Do you not read the actual sentences that I type?

Apologies I misread.

It doesn't matter what ESPN considers or doesn't consider something to be, and again you don't seem to grasp that them having broadcast rights is about more than just a national level. Furthermore, do you have any idea just how many immigrants we have in this country who haven't been exposed to our basketball consistently? But ESPN isn't broadcasting a "national" event. You do realize, for starters, that many NBA players or prospects are on other teams than Team USA?

Yes of course national level is all that matters to the the US based ESPN because it only reaches audiences in the United States. What other branches do world wide has nothing to do with the decisions of the US branch.

What are you talking about? Sports programming has never at any time in history been bigger and more sought after than it is now. You're comparing not showing LOCAL basketball teams that have their rights owned by LOCAL sports networks to not showing the most important event in international basketball? Seriously?

What are you talking about? More people care about those local teams than international basketball. The NBA has far more support (and is far more profitable) than international basketball in the United States and even they play the vast bulk of their nationally televised games on cable. The same goes for MLB and the NHL.

No they didn't. They played on ABC.

Patently false here's the 2010 Fiba world cup television schedule

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...l-80-games-available-live-on-espn3-com/60779/

You'll notice not only are US games not on ABC, some are on ESPN Classic! Which means the coverage was actually worse that year!

NBCSN isn't in fewer homes than ESPN.

Also blatantly false. NBCSN is on in 77,746,000 households across the country. ESPN is on in 97,736,000 homes. A difference of about 20 million.

Source

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...-coverage-estimates-as-of-august-2013/199072/

I guarantee you not only would every US game be on NBC but the other games would be on MSNBC, E!, etc like they did with the Olympics. Unlike ESPN, NBC knows how to grow things now that Comcast is running the show.

Comcast is one of the worst companies in America but that's a different argument. The Oympics are not just one of the biggest sporting events in the United States, but one of the biggest events period. FIBA world cup won't get the same treatment until it can get the ratings to justify it.

No it isn't. Only ESPN's coverage is moving that way. CBS to an extent, maybe, but mostly ESPN. NBCSports spreads their coverage over multiple networks, especially when it's a major event.

NBC's already doing this. Most of the NHL playoffs were on cable, hell half of the stanley cup final was on NBCSN. Most of their premier league schedule is online. If you wanted to see most events LIVE during the 2012 Olympics you had to do so online. The only events that are shown fully on national tv are events guaranteed to get ratings.

You're missing the much larger picture here. The World Championships needs to get bigger in the US in order to get bigger globally. We are basketball's home country, its ground zero. Can you ever imagine the UK treating the World Cup this way? No, and if they tried to they would be rightfully publicly shamed for it. Yet you're trying to act like ESPN doing that to the only basketball event that is on the level of March Madness is somehow okay, acceptable, and even defensible.

The problem is your turning a business argument into a moral argument. I would love it if the FIBA World Cup became bigger than the FIFA world cup, and I would love if ESPN treated them the same. However I know from a business point of view that makes no sense. NBC puts the money into the Olympics and ESPN puts the money into the FIFA World Cup because they had evidence it would be profitable. They have none of that for the FIBA World Cup so they're not going to treat it like that because they see it as a waste of money.

Fair enough if you're mad but you can't everyone else to share your viewpoint.

 

[GuTO2]

I made a denounce to FIBA email info@fiba.com talking about ESPN Brazil

this is a big joke, they have 3 channels and will show just 2 or 1 game per day? and in the worst channel?

wish I had a phone here in my house, I myself would make a phone call to Switzerland. FIBA should not make contract with ESPN Brazil again.

 

[CHBB2]

DTown, I was referring to FIFA World Cup USA games being on ABC. I thought that's what you were referring to. I'll address the rest later.

Good job, GuTO. We need to speak out about this ridiculous ish. A few of us isn't enough though. It has to be millions. There's no way the basketball federations can be happy with this coverage, especially after the way they relegate Euroleague to ESPN3.

 

[GuTO2]

DTown, I was referring to FIFA World Cup USA games being on ABC. I thought that's what you were referring to. I'll address the rest later.

Good job, GuTO. We need to speak out about this ridiculous ish. A few of us isn't enough though. It has to be millions. There's no way the basketball federations can be happy with this coverage, especially after the way they relegate Euroleague to ESPN3.

Agreed

thats what I think

this is bad to federations and FIBA too. Thats what I told in my email.

 

[Dtown2]

DTown, I was referring to FIFA World Cup USA games being on ABC. I thought that's what you were referring to. I'll address the rest later.

I said the bulk of soccer team USA's games where on ESPN and that's true the games against Ghana, Germany, and Portugal were all on ESPN http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2014/02/espn-schedule-2014-fifa-world-cup/

 

[saalsapr2]

So part of the blame is the US media since they don't hype the WC, eh? Even in NBA forum they don't really care about it much.

One way to make them care is... Beat them inside the court, only then the world will get their attention

Nah, I mean take baseball for example which is supposedly America's past time. There have been 3 World Baseball Classic's and in each tournament the US has been the world's punching bag, yet the american stadiums dont fill up to their max until the semifinals.

 

[Federoy2]

A few people brought up NBA TV and their supplemental coverage of the World Cup. If their coverage of last year's FIBA Americas and Eurobasket tournament is any indication, expect sucky coverage. NBA TV has a habit of going to commercial break and then returning in the middle of game action...very frustrating from a fan's perspective. Also, the network isn't big on pre-game or post-game extras.

 

[usagre2]

A few people brought up NBA TV and their supplemental coverage of the World Cup. If their coverage of last year's FIBA Americas and Eurobasket tournament is any indication, expect sucky coverage. NBA TV has a habit of going to commercial break and then returning in the middle of game action...very frustrating from a fansperspective. Also, the network isn't big on pre-game or post-game extras.

nba tv is gonna have pretty extensive coverage.
8/30 fra-bra
8/31 arg-cro, bra-iran
9/1 arg-phi, gre-p.r, esp-bra
9/2 slo-kor
9/3 mex-aus, bra-srb
9/4 bra-egy, esp-srb

all of the round of 16 and quarterfinals excluding usa games as well. and all live.
the problem is if they do what they did in 2010 you are right limited to no pre and post coverage and the announcers are 2 fiba guys who are horrible. judging by their accents one was an american and one british. but hey that's what the volume control is for.

 

[JGX2]

nba tv is gonna have pretty extensive coverage.

Some of the PR and Mexico games are on ESPN Deportes too.

Meanwhile, only a quarter of the group stage games will be shown in Spain:
http://www.marca.com/blogs/angeles-.../de-unas-contra-la-cobertura-de-mediaset.html

 

[usagre2]

What a difference watching the games on nba tv and usa games on espn. The atmosphere comes to life on nba tv while espn has to muffle the crowd noise since their broadcasters are not in the arena and it takes away from the excitement that is actually going on. In 2010 they finally sent Fran there for the final, hopefully they will get there earlier this time.