[PaintTouches]Big East, FOX Sports 1 struggle to gain TV ratings

[bradley center bat]

The only way I see this having potential for being a positive is if FOX starts to put more Big East basketball on the mothership, like at least one game a week.

Obviously that's not happening this year but that's the only way I see a Big East game being able to draw the kind of viewership they would be able to on ESPN.

We could get the best of both worlds in having the luxury of every game televised on FS1, but still being able to draw the big ratings on FOX 4 or 5 times a year. Probably won't happen though.

Xavier at MU got moved to Fox.

Don't really know what you mean by big ratings. Most college hoops game doesn't draw a 1.0 and won't with many games on 6 different networks.

[Coleman]

Xavier at MU got moved to Fox.

Don't really know what you mean by big ratings. Most college hoops game doesn't draw a 1.0 and won't with many games on 6 different networks.

If you look at the graph on the Paint Touches original post, the Big East games on FOX got almost the same ratings as those on ESPN.

That's what I mean by "big" ratings...

Yeah, I know MU has 2 games on FOX this year (Ohio State and Xavier), which is decent, but I think to really make up for the lost viewership we are getting by being on FS1 it probably needs to be more like 4 or 5 a year. Will it ever happen? Probably not

[77ncaachamps]

Another example of no longer being on ESPN.

At the ticker (at the top of ESPN's page), they usually have the Top 25 scoreboard.
But you have to click on Full Scoreboard to see all the games that day, right?

Wrong. The link takes you to the Top 25 and other games hosted on ESPN's family channels.

So, where's the Marquette-Xavier game?

You have to go another step to the Big East (or ALL games) scoreboard to find it.

I'm bookmarking the BE scoreboard for future reference.

[Jet915]

It's all about content.  When FS1 got big games and big events, UFC or big college football games, they got viewers.  It's that simple.  When they get better content, the ratings will go up.  MLB this year, US Open and big NASCAR races in 2015.  Big Ten (which Fox owns half of Big Ten Network) is up for bid in 2016 along with NBA and maybe Thursday night NFL.  Fox will ATLEAST get one of those.  It might never get up to ESPN ratings but in a few years, after they get better content, they will be up there with ESPN2 which will be a win IMO (they are already ahead of NBC Sports Network and CBS Sports Network).

[nathanziarek]

For my wife and I the biggest thing ESPN provides is their ecosystem.

We dove into "cord shaving" about two years ago when I figured out I could subscribe to a basic tier of cable, not take ownership of a cable box (and the associated fees) and then be able to utilize all the cable-required apps out there.

For ESPN, it's awesome.

But, because FS1 doesn't have an agreement with TimeWarner, their app doesn't work for us. When I'm home at night with nothing to do, I'll toss on a random game from WatchESPN. I'd much rather watch Big East games, but I simply don't have that option.

(I've been trying to get my father-in-law to loan me his username / password for AT&T so I could sign into FS1Go with that, but he's resisting. Probably for the best, since my goal was to get as close to cord cutting as I could without resorting to "stealing". He's saving my soul, I guess. BUT -- If Chicos is reading, this is the market. Get me a package that provides a bunch of streaming and doesn't nickel and dime me for HD upgrades and receivers I never use. Make this special online-only package ala cart while you're at it, and you get a tiny little foothold into migrating that strategy over to your other offerings. Gosh I'm brilliant )

[mr.MUskie]

Being next to ESPN helps FS1 with ratings, it's a no brainer. 

No doubt that's true, so does ESPN have the clout to keep FS1 out of the neighborhood?

[ChicosBailBonds]

No doubt that's true, so does ESPN have the clout to keep FS1 out of the neighborhood?

Well, ESPN has contracts that come around also.  So sure, they would like to prevent that stuff, but that becomes a chit to play there as well.  IMO

[ChicosBailBonds]

For my wife and I the biggest thing ESPN provides is their ecosystem.

We dove into "cord shaving" about two years ago when I figured out I could subscribe to a basic tier of cable, not take ownership of a cable box (and the associated fees) and then be able to utilize all the cable-required apps out there.

For ESPN, it's awesome.

But, because FS1 doesn't have an agreement with TimeWarner, their app doesn't work for us. When I'm home at night with nothing to do, I'll toss on a random game from WatchESPN. I'd much rather watch Big East games, but I simply don't have that option.

(I've been trying to get my father-in-law to loan me his username / password for AT&T so I could sign into FS1Go with that, but he's resisting. Probably for the best, since my goal was to get as close to cord cutting as I could without resorting to "stealing". He's saving my soul, I guess. BUT -- If Chicos is reading, this is the market. Get me a package that provides a bunch of streaming and doesn't nickel and dime me for HD upgrades and receivers I never use. Make this special online-only package ala cart while you're at it, and you get a tiny little foothold into migrating that strategy over to your other offerings. Gosh I'm brilliant )

Brilliant for you, unbrilliant for Fox, ESPN, etc, etc.  Fox, ESPN, all want (and need) the guarantee of millions of subscribers (whether you watch or not) and the associated subscriber fees that go along with those subscribers.  So much so, they have bid enormous dollars on NFL, MLB, college sports, etc with those subscriber numbers baked in.  You make it a la carte or online only, they get a fraction of those numbers and a fraction of those fees, which means none of this stuff happens.  They're committed to many of these sports contracts until 2023.

[bradley center bat]

If you look at the graph on the Paint Touches original post, the Big East games on FOX got almost the same ratings as those on ESPN.

That's what I mean by "big" ratings...

Yeah, I know MU has 2 games on FOX this year (Ohio State and Xavier), which is decent, but I think to really make up for the lost viewership we are getting by being on FS1 it probably needs to be more like 4 or 5 a year. Will it ever happen? Probably not

The one game on Fox was Ohio State at MU, which was lost because it was a college football Saturday. Plus, Ohio State football was on at the same time as the basketball game.

I think FS1 will do great! People will be shocked to see how much MLB will be on FS1 and won't be on Fox. I think Fox only has 12 reg. season games, All-Star Game and World Series. The rest is on FS1.

We see what FS1 has in shows for Super Bowl week as well.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The one game on Fox was Ohio State at MU, which was lost because it was a college football Saturday. Plus, Ohio State football was on at the same time as the basketball game.

I think FS1 will do great! People will be shocked to see how much MLB will be on FS1 and won't be on Fox. I think Fox only has 12 reg. season games, All-Star Game and World Series. The rest is on FS1.

We see what FS1 has in shows for Super Bowl week as well.

People are going to be equally shocked (potentially) of how many distributors choose not to broadcast those MLB games on FS1 because they are not part of the original contract and require an additional fee.  What I'm saying is that just because FS1 will get MLB games in April, distributors don't have to take them and can choose to black them out rather than pay the cost increase to put them on the air.  It has happened before and I would bet it happens again to some distributors. 

[nathanziarek]

Brilliant for you, unbrilliant for Fox, ESPN, etc, etc.  Fox, ESPN, all want (and need) the guarantee of millions of subscribers (whether you watch or not) and the associated subscriber fees that go along with those subscribers.  So much so, they have bid enormous dollars on NFL, MLB, college sports, etc with those subscriber numbers baked in.  You make it a la carte or online only, they get a fraction of those numbers and a fraction of those fees, which means none of this stuff happens.  They're committed to many of these sports contracts until 2023.

No, I get the "guaranteed" aspect of cable. It's really a pretty amazing system when you think about how it spreads the costs around so I'm not paying $20/month for just ESPN.

My brilliance (the smiley was the clue that it was sarcasm...forgot my teal) was in creating a wholly new offering that could run ala cart from scratch and beta test with a small audience. I don't believe the current model can work indefinitely. The company that figures out the next model wins. The companies that continue to say "but what about subscriber fees?" is going to love.

[TheTulsaWarrior]

One other note -- I'd be more concerned if the production quality of the broadcast sucked.

[WarriorFan]

Ratings would be better if they showed the game they advertised!  DePaul should have gone to FS2 and the headline game should have started on time on FS1.  Terrible mistake.