How many more years on the Fox contract?
George Grapman
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
George Grapman
Tarkus
> Answering my own question-end of next season.
How many years do you think they'll re-up for?
--
Pitchers.bat found - delete dh.sys (Y/y)?
Now playing: the radio.
Pat McLean
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:BJX6f.3625$D13....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Answering my own question-end of next season.
> --
> To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
You mean you don't want to have any more of that computerized guy, the
tight, tight shots, and otherwise teenage "look what I can do with computers
mom" coverage?
Just remember, somebody will pick up Tim McCarver because where else will we
get insight like "Most guys show concentration, but no one shows more
concentration on his face than Andy Pettitte. Those eyes are very focused."
And then Chris Myers just contributed some groundbreaking journalsim, about
talking to Pettitte before the game, and his thoughts being with people near
hurricanes....Have we reached the point that everybody has to say their
thoughts are there? Does the fact that you don't tell Chris Myers to
broadcast it mean he wants them to perish? Hasn't anyone figured out yet
the best way to move on from something like it is to stop reminding them of
it a month later at *every single* opportunity?
George Grapman
> On 10/23/2005 7:33:05 PM, George Grapman wrote:
>
>> Answering my own question-end of next season.
>
> How many years do you think they'll re-up for?
Maybe we can take up a collection for ESPN or NBC to help them outbid
Fox.
Baxter Nutbar
George Grapman wrote:
> Please tell me it is soon.
And just what network is going to swoop in as our televising saviour? I
can think of only one: ABC.
I can't see CBS bidding for rights; they seem to think that with the NFL
and college basketball (along with other properties), they don't need
anything else.
NBC? Maybe. But at THEIR (reduced) price.
ABC makes sense for two reasons:
1. ESPN's current association with MLB.
2. Al Michaels needs work.
True they're saving money by not having Monday Night Football after this
year, but that doesn't mean they'll spend that dough on other sports
rights. Of course, they could just get ESPN to buy it for them (just
like their NBA contract).
If I recall correctly, when the last contract ran out after the 2000
season, MLB shopped the rights around. ABC and CBS weren't interested,
and NBC was kinda interested (just not at MLB's asking price). Next
thing you know, Fox snapped everything up. (If I am incorrect on this,
please let me know.)
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Fox and MLB extend their
agreement after '06. That's just a gut feeling; I don't have any
"insider" information to base that on. Of course, it doesn't really
matter what network(s) gets the rights for '07 and beyond... you know
they're hiring McCarver.
Baxter
Perry Sailor
> Tarkus wrote:
>> On 10/23/2005 7:33:05 PM, George Grapman wrote:
>>
>>> Answering my own question-end of next season.
>>
>> How many years do you think they'll re-up for?
>
>
> Maybe we can take up a collection for ESPN or NBC to help them outbid
> Fox.
ESPN Classic ran the NBC telecast of 1975 WS Game 7 Saturday afternoon.
Boy, was THAT refreshing. No ads behind home plate. Only occasional
on-screen graphics. No sound effects. Few closeups. Replays only of
interesting or close or exceptional plays. They didn't even replay Perez's
homer that made it 3-2 -- I mean, it was a home run, right? What's to
replay, we all saw it the first time. Now Fox shows replays of Ball 2.
Perry
NFN Smith
We can be hopeful, but I'm not optimistic.
Even if the other networks (either individually, or in some kind of
combination) decide that they're willing to put out the kind of money
that Fox is currently paying MLB (and MLB will want more, not less,
unless Fox announces that it's not interested, under any terms), I think
the chances are good that Fox gets a renewal/extension.
And even if it is somebody else, we're likely to see a lot of the same
gimmicky over-production that Fox gives us.
A useful comparative measure is comparing Fox's NFL coverage with the
packages we get with CBS and ABC/ESPN. The others aren't quite as
annoying as Fox, but their telecasts are also overproduced, and far too
much attention of what's happening on the field, _right now_.
As good as the NBC production was in 1975, I'm not optimistic that we'll
see that kind of coverage again. Too much new equipment and technology
begging to be used and justify its expense. Too many stat-heads and
fantasy players that want all the most intricate and inane details. Too
much need to try to hold channel-surfers that can just as easily click
the remote button to go on to the next station. And for what it's
worth, too many sports bars with multiple big-screens that use the game
as much as anything as background noise, and where patrons glance at the
game now and then (rather than actually watching it). And too much
tradition from the networks of using big events to grab casual fans, and
then using the platform to promote their other programming.
Unfortunately, Harry Coyle is long gone, and I doubt that anybody has
his understanding and appreciation of the game, and enough influence on
the process to make any serious changes in how any of the networks are
likely to cover games.
I really hope I'm wrong.
Smith
George Grapman
replays, reactions from the dugouts and stands but Scully was silent for
about two minutes.
If that happened now McCarver would tell us what a great game we saw
, an on field airhead would be asking a player if he was happy followed
by a break.
Raymond DiPerna
George Grapman wrote:
>
> My favorite is Scully after Game 6 of the '86 Series. They showed
> replays, reactions from the dugouts and stands but Scully was silent for
> about two minutes.
> If that happened now McCarver would tell us what a great game we saw
> , an on field airhead would be asking a player if he was happy followed
> by a break.
I don't have the problems with McCarver that other people do, but it
_was_ a bit much when an inning later he was still explaining to us
what Rowand did wrong only advancing to second on the ball Pierzynski
hit off the LF wall.
Especially since both Rowand and Pierzynski ended up scoring anyway.
One thing I do like about FOX's coverage is when they let us listen in
on a _substantive_ conversation the players/manager had with each
other. For example, Rowand asking Ozzie if he made a baserunning
mistake there was interesting to me.
Rowand asking Biggio how the weather was in Houston, well, was not.
--Ray
NFN Smith
> And just what network is going to swoop in as our televising saviour? I
> can think of only one: ABC.
>
> I can't see CBS bidding for rights; they seem to think that with the NFL
> and college basketball (along with other properties), they don't need
> anything else.
I don't see CBS doing it either. I don't know that have recovered from
getting burned so badly the last time they tried baseball.
>
> NBC? Maybe. But at THEIR (reduced) price.
Very questionable, and yes, it would have to be at their price.
Remember, that they were OK with being outbid by Fox on baseball, CBS on
football, and declined to renew on the NBA.
I think I remember hearing that NBC is not renewing its contract with
NASCAR. I don't know what they're thinking that they want to replace
that programming with...
For NBC, I think I remember Dick Ebersol making it pretty clear that it
wasn't cost-effective for NBC to be putting out the kind of money that
the NFL and MLB want.
>
> ABC makes sense for two reasons:
> 1. ESPN's current association with MLB.
> 2. Al Michaels needs work.
The second is probably minor, but the first makes sense.
>
> True they're saving money by not having Monday Night Football after this
> year, but that doesn't mean they'll spend that dough on other sports
> rights. Of course, they could just get ESPN to buy it for them (just
> like their NBA contract).
I don't know if they're really saving much money on Monday Night Football.
>
> If I recall correctly, when the last contract ran out after the 2000
> season, MLB shopped the rights around. ABC and CBS weren't interested,
> and NBC was kinda interested (just not at MLB's asking price). Next
> thing you know, Fox snapped everything up. (If I am incorrect on this,
> please let me know.)
That sounds close to what I remember.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Fox and MLB extend their
> agreement after '06. That's just a gut feeling; I don't have any
> "insider" information to base that on. Of course, it doesn't really
> matter what network(s) gets the rights for '07 and beyond... you know
> they're hiring McCarver.
McCarver has history with ABC, although if NBC picked up baseball, he
might not go there.
In the meantime, I'm inclined to agree with you, that MLB is worth more
to Fox than it is to the other networks.
Smith
Roger Moore
> My favorite is Scully after Game 6 of the '86 Series. They showed
>replays, reactions from the dugouts and stands but Scully was silent for
>about two minutes.
> If that happened now McCarver would tell us what a great game we saw
>, an on field airhead would be asking a player if he was happy followed
>by a break.
I think that you need to cut McCarver at least a tiny bit of slack. He
was smart enough to just shut up for about a minute after Konerko's Slam
in game 2.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
Tanner
Roger Moore wrote:
> I think that you need to cut McCarver at least a tiny bit of slack. He
> was smart enough to just shut up for about a minute after Konerko's Slam
> in game 2.
Given that the HR came after a commercial break for a pitching change,
and given that McCarver didn't say anything after the commercials and
before the homer... I wouldn't be surprised if he had taken a restroom
break and hadn't returned to the booth.
Pat McLean
> My favorite is Scully after Game 6 of the '86 Series. They showed
> replays, reactions from the dugouts and stands but Scully was silent for
> about two minutes.
> If that happened now McCarver would tell us what a great game we saw ,
> an on field airhead would be asking a player if he was happy followed by a
> break.
I have Game 5 from 84 on tape, and it struck me how with 1 out, Scully said
how they would just be quiet....Garagiola said something quickly, but they
were quiet for most of the last 2 at bats, and a good chunk of the
celebration.
But I also think that Scully is one of, if not the last, of the breed who
understand you are watching the game to...watch the game, not listen to the
broadcaster. Which ironically enough, makes him one of the few who could
actually overshadow the game.
Tarkus
> I have Game 5 from 84 on tape, and it struck me how with 1 out, Scully
> said how they would just be quiet....Garagiola said something quickly,
> but they were quiet for most of the last 2 at bats, and a good chunk
> of the celebration.
>
> But I also think that Scully is one of, if not the last, of the breed
> who understand you are watching the game to...watch the game, not
> listen to the broadcaster. Which ironically enough, makes him one of
> the few who could actually overshadow the game.
OTOH, Chris Berman (yes, Chris Berman) and his partner(s) were smart
enough to be quiet for several minutes during the big Cal Ripken
celebration when he broke the record.
--
"At the end of the day, we're the boss. We tell him what to do.
If you want to call me a bad guy, call me a bad guy, not him."
- Alex Rodriguez, responding to criticism of agent Scott Boras
Now playing: "Judas Priest - Rocka Rolla"
Realto Margarino
news:1b2f7gpd...@tarkus.karnevil9.com...
> OTOH, Chris Berman (yes, Chris Berman) and his partner(s) were smart
> enough to be quiet for several minutes during the big Cal Ripken
> celebration when he broke the record.
Yes, but you should have been at the game! During the 22 minute standing
ovation, The Nieporent was running around the park, screaming, "The streak
hurt the team! The streak hurt the team!"
cordially, as always,
rm