As mentioned here, Speed is going to become Fox Sports One. It hasn't been officially announced, but everyone knows that is the deal. Likely August. Now, it appears, FUEL will become Fox Sports 2.
This will become Fox's battle with ESPN and ESPN 2...Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2.
Speed is in 81 million homes, Fuel in about 38 million.
This is where it is going.
SPEED & FUEL - Two stations I have never watched and won't even consider stopping on when channel surfing. Since they are losing Primier League games, does the Fox Soccer Channel become Fox Sports 3?
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on January 28, 2013, 11:56:46 AM
SPEED & FUEL - Two stations I have never watched and won't even consider stopping on when channel surfing. Since they are losing Primier League games, does the Fox Soccer Channel become Fox Sports 3?
You aren't alone CT, that's why they are rebranding those channels. FUEL barely gets a pulse, though Speed actually finishes in the 50's or so in terms of rankings.
For Fox Soccer, likely to become a sister channel to FX and could be named FXX (or FX2). It will be like FX that has entertainment and sports content is the buzz about town.
All of this will be announced in the next few months, if not sooner with changes happening in August if I were to guess.
My cable lists literally hundreds of channels, but I've got to admit I've heard of neither of these.
Fox News overtook CNN. If Fox Sports could do half as much, it will be a good thing for Fox.
Quote from: front row on January 28, 2013, 12:18:59 PM
Fox News overtook CNN. If Fox Sports could do half as much, it will be a good thing for Fox.
Does this mean Karl Rove will be calling MUBB games?
Can't wait to see what he makes of our games in Ohio.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on January 28, 2013, 11:56:46 AM
SPEED & FUEL - Two stations I have never watched and won't even consider stopping on when channel surfing. Since they are losing Primier League games, does the Fox Soccer Channel become Fox Sports 3?
If I heard correctly, Fox Soccer Channel is going away and morphing into a movie/entertainment channel. If true, too bad. I really like FSC.
Quote from: akmarq on January 28, 2013, 12:21:22 PM
Does this mean Karl Rove will be calling MUBB games?
Can't wait to see what he makes of our games in Ohio.
They clearly will have no bracketology because if anyone makes a prediction before the final tally Rove will have another on-screen meltdown.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 28, 2013, 12:06:10 PM
You aren't alone CT, that's why they are rebranding those channels. FUEL barely gets a pulse, though Speed actually finishes in the 50's or so in terms of rankings.
For Fox Soccer, likely to become a sister channel to FX and could be named FXX (or FX2). It will be like FX that has entertainment and sports content is the buzz about town.
All of this will be announced in the next few months, if not sooner with changes happening in August if I were to guess.
i read that too but my understanding was they were going to have 2 sports channels and 2 Entertainment channels, with no crossover. So they'd essentially stop showing football and any future sports on FX and FX2, and move all that to Fox sports 1 and 2. they'd also integrate their network channel to some degree, so it'd be like an ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 type model, which i think would be great. Not sure if the network actually plans on showing hoops, but that'd be cool to have some marquee sat games on there.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 28, 2013, 12:06:10 PM
For Fox Soccer, likely to become a sister channel to FX and could be named FXX (or FX2).
And FXXX will be their new porn channel.
So, EA will be sportin' her best assets on future MU games.
Quote from: Groin_pull on January 28, 2013, 12:38:43 PM
If I heard correctly, Fox Soccer Channel is going away and morphing into a movie/entertainment channel. If true, too bad. I really like FSC.
I do actually tune-in to FSC also. My father-in-law would have a meltdown. When he comes to visit from Poland, it's TV Polonia & the Fox Soccer Channel non-stop for him (besides that occasional foray to one of the Spanish stations for coverage of some Mexican League game.)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 28, 2013, 11:45:07 AM
This will become Fox's battle with ESPN and ESPN 2...Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2.
Speed is in 81 million homes, Fuel in about 38 million.
How many homes is ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU in?
What about CBS Sports? My latest channel line-up switch now offers that in HD. Are they a possibility?
Quote from: front row on January 28, 2013, 12:18:59 PM
Fox News overtook CNN. If Fox Sports could do half as much, it will be a good thing for Fox.
But Fox Business has not been able to cut into CNBC. So yes their is an example where they overtook the dominate player in a field. Their is also an example where they did not.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 28, 2013, 01:48:05 PM
How many homes is ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU in?
What about CBS Sports? My latest channel line-up switch now offers that in HD. Are they a possibility?
But Fox Business has not been able to cut into CNBC. So yes their is an example where they overtook the dominate player in a field. Their is also an example where they did not.
Fox Business is on digital, where CNBC is on standard.
Fox News got huge because they served a niche. There was no right-viewpoint outlet of national news, so 50% of Americans were underserved. Fox News gets created and poof, now the rest of the media is competing for a much smaller market (50% smaller).
Would a well-produced suite of channels that provided sports coverage serve the niche of competition to ESPN? Maybe. It depends entirely on what they carry and how well they carry it.
Personally, I think ESPN has gotten complacent because it hasn't had real competition in years. That being said, it's an uphill battle for a competitor to offer an alternative that could really challenge ESPN.
Ha. I watch a lot of FUEL and even pay a premium for it with my DirecTV subscription.
Quote from: lawwarrior12 on January 28, 2013, 02:11:41 PM
Personally, I think ESPN has gotten complacent because it hasn't had real competition in years. That being said, it's an uphill battle for a competitor to offer an alternative that could really challenge ESPN.
Sports Center commercials alone are going to be almost impossible to best.
Quote from: lawwarrior12 on January 28, 2013, 02:11:41 PM
Personally, I think ESPN has gotten complacent because it hasn't had real competition in years. That being said, it's an uphill battle for a competitor to offer an alternative that could really challenge ESPN.
I don't think this is true. I think ESPN has switched from a niche to mainstream company. That means they aren't focused with true sports news, but rather competing for the main stream customer. Basically, they sold their soul. If a new market focused on small-market teams, it would hurt ESPN a little but they would still just focus on the major markets since that is where the money is for them.
That said, they have had some great programming the past few years with their 30 for 30 specials on Benji, broke, etc. I watch them all the time on Netflix. Not bad content for station that was based on highlights.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on January 28, 2013, 01:48:05 PM
How many homes is ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU in?
What about CBS Sports? My latest channel line-up switch now offers that in HD. Are they a possibility?
But Fox Business has not been able to cut into CNBC. So yes their is an example where they overtook the dominate player in a field. Their is also an example where they did not.
ESPN is in more than 100 million homes. ESPN2 the same. ESPNU in about 75 million. CBS Sports Network about 45 million.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on January 28, 2013, 02:21:57 PM
That said, they have had some great programming the past few years with their 30 for 30 specials on Benji, broke, etc. I watch them all the time on Netflix. Not bad content for station that was based on highlights.
Yes the 30 for 30 series is great. But other channels knows this and they being copied by MLB, NBATV, BTN, Tennis channel etc. Even CNBC regularly does documentaries on companies or industries.
Fox 1 and Fox 2 could leverage their access to Hollywood via their studio to do documentaries if that is what they think will work. I hope they do.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on January 28, 2013, 02:21:57 PM
I don't think this is true. I think ESPN has switched from a niche to mainstream company. [...]
That said, they have had some great programming the past few years with their 30 for 30 specials on Benji, broke, etc. I watch them all the time on Netflix. Not bad content for station that was based on highlights.
1. They do produce great stuff sometimes (see: 30 for 30).
2. Their Sports Center production is usually great (exception, any time they bring in 'polarizing' commentators or focus on 'polarizing' content, e.g. Stephen A Smith and Tebow respectively)
3. They produce great live sports and have a good stable of rights so they can put good games on the air for whatever it is that they're broadcasting.
What I think ESPN has lost its way on is focusing on programming decisions that are either unwatchable by many or only hate watched, like First Take, or Tebow, or Herm Edwards. I think some of their decisions have been: "We want our numbers in X demographic a little higher and we get results when we do [God awful thing], what else are the people we irritate going to watch?"
Question: Since a bunch of C7 cities are good hockey towns (Chicago, Philly, NYC) does anyone think that the Fox Sports # would try to add some hockey to the programming schedule to try to build a big following in all of the cities?
Quote from: Warrior's Path on January 28, 2013, 02:16:14 PM
Ha. I watch a lot of FUEL and even pay a premium for it with my DirecTV subscription.
Fuel just got rolled into a lower package so you might not have to be paying a premium for it. It is part of CHOICE XTRA now effective earlier this month.
Quote from: lawwarrior12 on January 28, 2013, 02:31:40 PM
Question: Since a bunch of C7 cities are good hockey towns (Chicago, Philly, NYC) does anyone think that the Fox Sports # would try to add some hockey to the programming schedule to try to build a big following in all of the cities?
NO, because NBC and the NHL just signed a new TV deal.
Quote from: front row on January 28, 2013, 12:18:59 PM
Fox News overtook CNN. If Fox Sports could do half as much, it will be a good thing for Fox.
FWIW, I saw a report that Fox News ratings are down 44% since the recent election.
I would never say Sportcenter is great. It's turned into MTV.
Isn't Fuel the one with all the UFC programming? I've been watching that stuff more and more. It's becoming part of my regular rotation now. Can't hurt with how fast that sport is taking off.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 28, 2013, 01:11:32 PM
So, EA will be sportin' her best assets on future MU games.
But you have to watch through a keyhole.
And don't worry about Fox Soccer. I think what Fox is doing is moving its sports properties to these new channels, and not having specific channels devoted to specific sports.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on January 28, 2013, 02:38:37 PM
FWIW, I saw a report that Fox News ratings are down 44% since the recent election.
I think that was for the inauguration viewing only....which isn't a surprise. Their ratings are slightly down, but they still have a sizable lead since it's the only conservative outlet for people to go to while there are several for liberals.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on January 28, 2013, 02:38:37 PM
FWIW, I saw a report that Fox News ratings are down 44% since the recent election.
Can you provide more context....
Compared to this time last year? Compared to previous dead season 2 years ago?
Or better yet, what about CNN's ratings since the recent election?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 28, 2013, 03:01:58 PM
I think that was for the inauguration viewing only....which isn't a surprise. Their ratings are slightly down, but they still have a sizable lead since it's the only conservative outlet for people to go to while there are several for liberals.
It wasn't just the inauguration viewing. The surprise was that is remained that way since the election. If I can find the link?
********************************
It appears I was only half right. Several articles from Dec. 31, that Fox ratings were way down from election day but only to the pre-convention levels. Everyone else's ratings remained about where they were at election day.
Quote from: lawwarrior12 on January 28, 2013, 02:30:10 PM
1. They do produce great stuff sometimes (see: 30 for 30).
2. Their Sports Center production is usually great (exception, any time they bring in 'polarizing' commentators or focus on 'polarizing' content, e.g. Stephen A Smith and Tebow respectively)
3. They produce great live sports and have a good stable of rights so they can put good games on the air for whatever it is that they're broadcasting.
What I think ESPN has lost its way on is focusing on programming decisions that are either unwatchable by many or only hate watched, like First Take, or Tebow, or Herm Edwards. I think some of their decisions have been: "We want our numbers in X demographic a little higher and we get results when we do [God awful thing], what else are the people we irritate going to watch?"
Although I agree with much of this- I love Herm Edwards!
Quote from: robertoc on January 28, 2013, 03:29:52 PM
Although I agree with much of this- I love Herm Edwards!
Good post, but strongly disagree with your SportsCenter comment. It's almost unwatchable today. Has gone from a straight, news-style highlights show to an audition for sports anchors to show how witty and funny they are. The "clever" inside jokes...the stupid catchphrases. Ugh. It all gets in the way of what I'm tuning in for: the latest sports highlights and news. I really miss CNN's Sports Tonight.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on January 28, 2013, 02:38:37 PM
FWIW, I saw a report that Fox News ratings are down 44% since the recent election.
Yes but their ratings, all cable news ratings, were wildly inflated going into the election. And, they are all down a lot since election day.
Here is my guess as to what Fox is doing, they are going to create FX, FX2, FS1, and FS2(and of course just Fox). They are going to make FX drama entertainment(ala TNT), they are going to make FX2 comedy entertainment(ala TBS), and they are going to move all sports content to Fox, FS1, and FS2. They are then going to go out and grab as much sports content as possible to fill up those three stations, especially FS1 and FS2.
Once they have content driving ratings, I bet they absolutely put on a version of SportsCenter and try and steal share from ESPN.
Theoretically, I THINK, this would give them more eye balls for advertising than ESPN/ABC can. Fox would have Fox, FX, FX2, FS1, FS2, FoxNews, etc. and ESPN would only have ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU.
I don't remember when the current March Madness tourney contract runs out with CBS, but I'd bet you dollar to donuts Fox goes after that really hard especially with the uniform platform they can offer as opposed to CBS's clugey CBS, TNT, TBS, and TruTV
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 28, 2013, 11:45:07 AM
As mentioned here, Speed is going to become Fox Sports One. It hasn't been officially announced, but everyone knows that is the deal. Likely August. Now, it appears, FUEL will become Fox Sports 2.
This will become Fox's battle with ESPN and ESPN 2...Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2.
Speed is in 81 million homes, Fuel in about 38 million.
This is where it is going.
Chicos, do you see these moving closer to the 100 millionish number ESPN and ESPN2 have, once they are rebranded? Or will they stay about the same?
I'd hate to see our exposure go from 75 million (ESPNU) to 100 million (ESPN and ESPN2) all the way down to 38 million (FS2) to 81 million (FS1) for games. Granted, FOX network channel would be more eyeballs than ESPN, but I don't see us playing on FOX more than once or twice a year, if they even use it for college basketball.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on January 28, 2013, 05:03:54 PM
Chicos, do you see these moving closer to the 100 millionish number ESPN and ESPN2 have, once they are rebranded? Or will they stay about the same?
I'd hate to see our exposure go from 75 million (ESPNU) to 100 million (ESPN and ESPN2) all the way down to 38 million (FS2) to 81 million (FS1) for games. Granted, FOX network channel would be more eyeballs than ESPN, but I don't see us playing on FOX more than once or twice a year, if they even use it for college basketball.
They will have to build the brands up on those networks, first, before distributors are going to be willing to pay FOX for the additional eyeballs. That will take time and a proven track record.
Quote from: robertoc on January 28, 2013, 03:29:52 PM
Although I agree with much of this- I love Herm Edwards!
You cannot possibly be serious. I refuse to believe that Herm Edwards was that supremely, beligerantly, stupid when he was actually coaching. I figure he's generally pretty in your face, so the producers just kept saying "Louder! More shouting! Less intelligent football analysis! More shouting frack-it-all!"
Quote from: Groin_pull on January 28, 2013, 03:37:55 PM
Good post, but strongly disagree with your SportsCenter comment. It's almost unwatchable today. Has gone from a straight, news-style highlights show to an audition for sports anchors to show how witty and funny they are. The "clever" inside jokes...the stupid catchphrases. Ugh. It all gets in the way of what I'm tuning in for: the latest sports highlights and news. I really miss CNN's Sports Tonight.
You do have a point. And if they faced regular competition in this space maybe they would stick to the sports-highlight stuff (which was mainly what I was talking about when I said it was great). However, I have seen, and been a part of, some shoddy sports highly productions. Our tolerance for poor production levels is much lower than we might realize.
I think this from time to time, especially during spring training/April MLB, Fox Sports Wisconsin's production of Brewers games is terrible. They get their ducks in a row (more or less) eventually, but initially I complain a lot. Then, in the midst of complaining I kind of reflect how if I'd seen this 10 years ago how jaw-dropping it would be. We expect seriously high production values now.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 28, 2013, 03:01:58 PM
I think that was for the inauguration viewing only....which isn't a surprise. Their ratings are slightly down, but they still have a sizable lead since it's the only conservative outlet for people to go to while there are several for liberals.
Laughably false
Quote from: slingkong on January 29, 2013, 02:21:11 PM
Laughably false
Uhm, ok. Well, I can only go on the studies, you are free to present your own. I'm referencing television. To each their own.
This from the Pew Research Study
(http://www.people-press.org/people-press/files/legacy/559-1.gif)
(http://www.people-press.org/people-press/files/legacy/559-2.gif)