Scholarship table
They choose to make it not work to protect the sanctity of the Rose Bowl
I think it's not just that. I think ABC/ESPN is OK with slightly lesser ratings for the playoffs on Dec. 28 because those ratings will still be massively higher than any other programming they would show that night. And while the other bowl games on Jan. 1 might not draw quite the ratings as playoff games, they'll still do pretty well because that's what people watch on Jan. 1.Big picture, they probably get more total viewers this way.
ABC has nothing to do with it. It's ESPN.
You’re probably right. But Jim Delany loves his Rose Bowl and spent nearly two decades protecting it despite the best interests of the sport. “Death to the BCS” does a great job covering it
Yes, Disney owns ABC. Yes, Disney owns ESPN. That said, they are individual units with their own P&Ls. Same thing with Turner Sports was it's own operating unit even though it shared same building with CNN, etc.
I'm glad he did protect it. The granddaddy of them all for a reason.
Your CNN/Turner Sports analogy sucks. ABC Sports and ESPN share nearly everything, from content to broadcasters to graphics to branding .... even a logo (see above below), and scheduling decisions, rights fees, etc. are addressed jointly.
Yes, how could college football go on without a game that decided 1 partial national championship after 1979 before moving out of the stone ages?
Because it's long dead - like both of my grandaddies?Look, I love the Rose Bowl and most certainly will be watching in a couple of days. But I would much rather have a new tradition. Perhaps a semifinal at Noon, the Rose or Sugar at 3:30 (alternating years), and the second semifinal at 7:00.
No, it actually doesn't suck and is very common in the industry.You often say to me that I don't belong in your legal space....you don't belong in my space here....to use your words...YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT! A classic example is the "shared logo"....that is a marketing, cross promotional branding and nothing more. Let's not forget that more than 65% of all ABC stations are not even owned by Disney, but by affiliates. Conversely, Disney owns ESPN completely. As such, there are major walls between ABC and ESPN. Sharing of graphics packages...whoop ti do. Also very common in the industry primarily for supply chain economics when deals are done. No different than sports data. But you are reaching way to far to force this one.You simply don't know what you are talking about in this area.
Look, I love the Rose Bowl and most certainly will be watching in a couple of days. But I would much rather have a new tradition. Perhaps a semifinal at Noon, the Rose or Sugar at 3:30 (alternating years), and the second semifinal at 7:00.
Your bit about being in your element here would work better if you could get the facts right in your so-called area of "expertise."To wit:- Disney does not own ESPN completely. Disney owns approximately 80 percent of ESPN. Hearst Communications owns the other 20 percent, as it has since the early 1990s. This arrangement is the only reason for what phony walls exist between ABC and ESPN ... and those have been getting thinner and thinner.- Who owns the actual affiliates is totally irrelevant to what programming the network produces and airs. It has nothing to do with this conversation.On everything that matters, ABC Sports and ESPN are the same entity ... same league rights, same production staffs, same broadcasters, same decision makers. Heck, ESPN and ABC Sports had the same president.Read this interview with that president, George Bodenheimer, and note how he consistently speaks of ABC Sports and ESPN as a joint unit, and never as separate entities.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/espn-and-abc-sports-president-george-bodenheimer
I miss the magic of NYD. Rose Bowl and Playoffs on that day would be outstanding!
ABC is SUPPLEMENTAL to ESPN. There is a reason for this, and most of it is contractual in nature. Who owns the affiliates absolutely matters because of pre-emption allowances. A non-owned ABC station can choose not to put on ABC programming in certain situations, including sports....ESPN would never do that because they cannot. So yes, the control of it matters.ABC Sports, currently, is a DIVISION OF ABC NETWORK. NOT ESPN. They are separate units. PERIOD. It is why on George's card (i'll happily scan it and publish here if you wish) he was the President of BOTH....as in BOTH are called out. If they were one unit, he would simply be the President of ESPN Sports, but they have chosen for the time being to keep both entities separate, and cross-brand promote even if they share in some areas. At some point I actually expect them to do away with the ABC Sports brand, but as of today in 2019 that is not the case. And though they share in SOME production and SOME other areas, they do not do so entirely. Jimmy Pitaro will ultimately make that call with George. As Broadcasters' power changes, that will become an easier decision for them to make.Hearst...my apologies. They are a silent partner in the strictest sense and had been talking to Hearst to sell off a bunch of their assets, including co-owned. Assets like A&E Networks some AMC holdings, etc. As part of the Disney Fox sell-off, including RSN divestiture it was my understanding ESPN was part of that, but maybe Hearst still owns a chunk. I can tell you when you deal with ESPN that Hearst isn't even on the radar.
That’s it. It’s fine keeping the Rose on NYD or Jan. 2 those select years but the day would be amazing with the playoffs there every year
Cheeks ... I'll keep this simple for you and say no more.The reason why ABC Sports and ESPN exist separately in name only is a result of the big fact you got wrong here ... Hearst's partial ownership of ESPN. While Disney owns all of ABC, it owns just 80 percent of ESPN, and therefore needs some "on the books" separation to address the issues therein.But this is nothing more than a bookkeeping matter. It in no way affects anything that matters in terms of the operations of ESPN/ABC as a sole entity, and certainly nothing that matters concerning ESPN's coverage of college football, which is what this discussion is about.
I sent this over to a VP at ESPN that I work with on a near daily basis....his best part of his response"What lesson does he think he is teaching...something at Trump U?". There is a lot of cross over, but it is not in NAME ONLY as you keep saying. There is a reason why leadership oversees both entities, with to resources to bear for both brands. Sales and Marketing are unified under one umbrella, but there are dedicated people that ONLY touch ESPN on ABC and those that only deal with ESPN by itself, as an example.Where we agree Pakuni, this is absolutely a marketing brand consolidation and has been for a decade and a half. ESPN essentially surpassed ABC Sports long ago, and ABC Sports took a back seat as a result. The gorilla brand became king...that's why the rebranding. Companies integrate cross-branding all the time now, and Disney was one of the first and best at it. The launch of Disney Plus and their integration on ESPN, ABC, all the Disney networks was a classic example. Comcast Universal with their merger did an amazing job at it and continue to. But as long as they have dedicated people working on each in some areas, your claim that it is in name only is wrong.
There's always an anonymous expert on standby ready to agree.
You sent a post from MUScoop over to a person you work with from ESPN? LOL! You must be a blast to work with!