Breeders' Cup To NBC: Thoughts On The New Deal
by Matt Gardner on Jan 23, 2012 1:05 PM EST
in General Horse Racing
Email
Print
It's not a huge surprise that the Breeders' Cup is going back to NBC Sports after several years at ESPN, but I don't think any us realized how imminent that move was. Now that I've had a few minutes to let the news of the broadcast deal between the Breeders' Cup and NBC Sports to sink in I've got some thoughts on the changes. In short, this move makes sense on so many levels and is really a win-win for both parties. In long... well, read below:
- For the new NBC Sports Network ("NBCSN"), they get a fantastic live sporting event to build around and it fits in with their current content. They began providing Saratoga and Keeneland coverage last summer/fall, which is a perfect lead towards the Breeders' Cup in November. (The network will also broadcast several Kentucky Derby prep races.)
- Ratings on the Versus/NBCSN are generally lower (overall) than on ESPN which, in some ways, is good for the Breeders' Cup. Instead of being viewed as a drag on the programming, as it seemed it was on ESPN, televising of the Breeders' Cup on NBCSN can be viewed as an opportunity to grow both the network and the event.
The year that the Breeders' Cup transitioned from NBC to ESPN ratings took a huge hit. Much of that is due to the disparity between broadcast and cable TV. But even when you compare broadcast-to-broadcast numbers from the ABC portion to the old NBC telecasts, the ESPN/ABC events just didn't measure up in terms of viewership. - The Breeders' Cup gets to be on a network where they aren't being "fit in" around the college football schedule. Sure, NBC has Notre Dame, and NBC Sports Network will televise college football, but ESPN was wall-to-wall college football on fall Saturdays, so much so that the network split up its Breeders' Cup coverage between ESPN, ESPN2 and ABC. That, to me, was a really bad deal for the Breeders' Cup and something that could only hurt viewership.
The Breeders' Cup will now be a centerpiece of NBC Sports Network's coverage. That's good for the Breeders' Cup in terms of marketing and promotion.
You knew ESPN was punting horse racing when they took the fantastic Chris Fowler off of their broadcasts and replaced him with Joe Tessatore. No offense to Joe Tessatore, who is probably a nice guy, but I just never took to him on their horse racing telecasts. Fowler is one of the best in the business and made, in my opinion, a big difference in the presentation of the program.
I don't have anything against ESPN, and not televising horse racing is a better business decision on their part considering that college football and the NFL are their bread-and-butter content, but I'm really glad I don't have to watch one of the sport's premier event's on their network(s) in the future.
Of all the ESPN on-air talent, I will be saddest to not see Jeannine Edwards anymore. She was one of the highlights of any ESPN horse racing telecast.
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think this is a great move
I hate the ESPN coverage. It bounces from station to station, doesn’t fully cover each race, and makes the entire telecast a side note to promoting one or two things (usually the Classic and whatever football game is on that evening). It is distracting and makes it harder for casual fans to pay attention. That being said, I always watch the network coverage in an attempt to show support for any racing on non-racing specific television stations.
I’ve already talked about my objection to the endless self-promotion of the ESPN family of networks, which usually detracts significantly from the overall quality of the broadcast.
And good riddance to Jerry Bailey, if that’s the case, I’m not a huge fan. I dislike how so many analyses of his are based on how he rode a horse back in the day, not on the tactics the jock would use in a given situation with a given horse. Maybe it’s not his fault, maybe the producers push to have historical footage in the broadcast, but that is transparent to me, so I’ll just take my wrath on out Bailey. But on the note of broadcasters, I agree with Pincay being fantastic. He’s really a quality TV personality for horse racing. Randy Moss is excellent, and I hope he makes the move. They can keep Hank Goldberg, but I hope they use the “Hank’s Bank” segment. You know you’ll get the Costas gravitas for the big moments and stories now, and you can’t argue with that. And it is unfortunate that Jeannine Edwards is going, especially since she just hosted the Eclipse awards.
As for the prime time note, from what I heard BC is pushing to be able to televise the event in primetime on the east coast from now on, which means a west coast track or a central/east coast track with lights. I have a feeling that this was a major sticking point as ESPN would rather have not sacrificed two seconds of prime time football coverage (and I can’t blame them).
I wonder what they'll do with the lighting issue?
I know Churchill has lights but Belmont doesn’t and neither does Santa Anita has lights (at least I think that’s the case; I can’t remember from when I was last there four years ago). Even with a 5:30pm post time on the West Coast you’d need some light at that time of night.
I agree wholeheartedly with the single channel thing. The whole ESPN/ESPN2/ABC jump around was simply awful. You couldn’t make it more difficult to follow the Breeders’ Cup on TV unless you threw some races on ESPN Classic and ESPN News.
A lot of people are making a big deal about the fact that NBCSN is in about 25% fewer homes than ESPN (75 million to 98 million… or something like that). I think that would be a big deal if we’re talking about a hugely popular event from a ratings perspective, but the last few Breeders’ Cups on ESPN have garnered ratings in the 0.8 to 1.2 ranges, which represents about a million+ people. I don’t think the distributions side is that big of a deal. And if it ever becomes a big deal it means the BC has become a lot more popular.
I think rather than being a little fish in a big pond (ESPN) it’s better to be a good sized fish in a comparatively smaller pond (NBCSN) but with a big pond available (NBC) for the Classic.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace
by Matt Gardner on Jan 23, 2012 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
I'm pretty sure they pushed CDI hard to put lights in at CD
I’m guessing they’ve laid their cards on the table and will want interested Eastern and Midwest tracks to do the same.
Temp lights are always a possibility. Churchill did that for a whole year for the Downs After Dark racing days. If BC is interested enough, they definitely have the cash to underwrite the expense for their two racing days.
And one more ESPN thought.
I think it would be great for the sport to have coverage like they did eight to ten years ago. At one time, in my opinion, ESPN was much better than NBC in their horse racing coverage. But if it’s not even going to get as much as attention as Little League Baseball (which it doesn’t) then it makes perfect sense to look for a network that is a more willing partner.
As a side note, I kind of chuckled at ESPN’s statement (that you can find in the first post on the new deal), especially the last sentence, which reads:
We look forward to continuing to work with [the Breeders’ Cup] on international coverage.
What in the heck does that mean? When was the last time ESPN did any international horse racing coverage? They used to broadcast some of the top races from Europe (again, that was 8 or 10 years ago) but not recently. Strange.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace
I completely agree with the Fish/Pond analogy
Horse racing is a great way to fill a sports network with legitimate sporting events. When ESPN2 was 100% World’s Strongest Man (presented by MetRX) and extreme sports, horse racing was a great thing to have one. Since ESPN realized that showing Jacksonville St-Georgia Southern made them more money than these fringe events, they’ve gone all in on football, to the detriment of the overall breadth of coverage of sports. Once you de-emphasize the sport, there’s no reason to pay attention to it, and the coverage deteriorates rapidly.
Well put.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace
by Matt Gardner on Jan 23, 2012 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
People
People need to not just focus on the here and now, but on the future. Yes right now NBCSN is in significantly fewer homes, but for how long? People are approaching this from a one year perspective that doesn’t accurately take into account the possibilities in the years to come.
People also are concerned about moving to a network with more “fringe” properties like NBC which has contracts with the MLS and NHL. This I think could be a possible boon, people get attracted to different enterprises for different reasons, and one thing I think could help attract people to the sport is showcasing its uniqueness, its struggles, and how different it is from the rest of the American sporting landscape. The 15 to 20 times I made it down to EMD last year, I saw plenty of clusters of young people new to the sport (thanks groupon! great idea EMD!) these are the same people who I would find at a pub before the Sounders game drinking a local brew (or Oregon brew) and wearing scarves. These people may not be a widespread group of people, but it sure has been enough to prop up the attendences of several MLS franchises, and couldd be a good market for horse racing.
I don't think Matt or I is panning the move
I personally like it. Yes, NBCSN is a smaller outlet, but who cares?
There is a reason I referenced the World’s Strongest Man. When I was in college, Magnus ver Magnusson was uber famous (sorry, the umlaut key doesn’t work on my computer…) precisely because the competition was on TV all of the time. I think any outlet that will more prominently feature horse racing is a great thing for the sport. It all falls in line with the expansion of gambling, more online ADWs, and greater TV prominence. Anything that can create a larger market for horse racing is a good thing. I’ve yet to meet anyone that’s been to the track (especially the backside) that didn’t immensely enjoy themselves. Just expose people to it and you’re golden.
Now that being said, I personally thought that ESPN did a bad job at precisely that: they didn’t promote the sport in a manner that attracts new viewers and fans. They focused on human interest stories. They don’t show all of the races that day. I can go on but my views are well documented above as well in numerous other posts. I’m excited for the change and the yearlong theme of racing with Derby prep races, Saratoga, Keeneland, the BC win and you’re in races, and the BC itself being on one network is the type of unity that is good for the sport.
Yeah, I think the hourseholds issue is really insignificant
especially when you really look at the numbers we are talking about. And the gap will likely narrow in the coming years.
I think MLS and NHL is a good comparison because both of those leagues moved (or are moving) from ESPN to Versus/NBCSN for many of the same reasons that horse racing has moved: NBCSN provides a better stage for their products and allows them to get out from underneath the large shadow of the NFL, NBA, MLB and college sports that ESPN is most interested in.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace
by Matt Gardner on Jan 25, 2012 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on And Down The Stretch They Come
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
