Daniel Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 This is an MSN conversation I had with a fellow Voyageur on 12/13 at 3am. Your thoughts? -------------------------------------------------------------- ***** says : What bugs me most is that what happened in this tournament had nearly zero effect on making people take notice of our men's game. Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : Yeah ***** says : Canadian people, I mean. Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : blame SNet's "commitment" for that Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : i refuse to thank them for this game Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : all they did was the bare minimum ***** says : My father was in his car during the game and said that on the Fan (sports radio) they kept telling the score every 5 mins. Obviously they were into it. But once the game is over, that's it. It's not going to stick in people's minds like if they were to watch it. Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : yeah, but you said it, dissapointment doesn't sell Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : and we had one of FIVE games on TV ***** says : I feel as you do. People were tearing up Sporsnet at first, then they did a 180. ***** says : I won't thank them either. ***** says : Or maybe thank them BUT point out how things SHOULD have been. Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : No Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : they knew that this was an important tourny Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : they had no prior commitments Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : they did nothing until they were practically FORCED to show the games Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : game, rather ***** says : True. Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : that's being too cheap to commit and build a property Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : same thing with the U20Qs ***** says : I remember your post about that under the "officially sucks" thread. I agree with that. Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : they got a 3rd party feed on day-late tape-delay Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : and no OQs Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : no U17s Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : etc. Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : but we'll probably get the U19WGCQ Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : Ridiculous Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : that's a big property to build, and they're just not willing to do so Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : go back to TSN or CBC, if you're gonna get the strict minimum Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : i mean, they're just trying to complement EPL most of the time ***** says : Certainly. Did you see their poll for the Soccer Heaven marathon this year? Dan(iel) - We'll Be There in '06! says : yeah, 1 of each, though, wasn't bad ***** says : Yeah they've actually improved it so that EPL won't get all the spots. But the Champions World Series is a waste. And I wish they would have done this in 2000 when I wanted to see the GC quarterfinal replayed so I could get it on tape! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayWay Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Soccer (Man. United) Heaven does suck.. They want us to pick between exhibition games?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 There's no question, they missed a golden opportunity (for themselves & for Canadian soccer) by not showing this tournament until Canada's Q-F match. I just hope now they are preparing to show the final round Olympic qualifiers, like they did in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattbin Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 I don't know why I'm always in the position of defending folks like Sportsnet and the CSA (well, sometimes), but it sure feels that way. However, I don't think it's fair to criticise Sportsnet so roundly here. First, like it or not, businesses typically plan for the last event, not the current event. For example, in '01 they were probably planning for the '97 WYC, and given Canada's excellent showing there they figured it was worth showcasing the new crop of up-and-coming talent. So they showed the qualifiers--which were in Canada anyhow--and the finals. Canada stank out the joint. They were easily beaten from their first minute on the field. No casual viewer was going to tune in to the next match after seeing either of the first two matches. So on to '03. This time, Sportsnet is going to treat it like the last one. They're going to get killed in each match, it's not going to draw any viewers, the rights aren't worth the money--we can replay a lumberjack contest for the $5 it'll cost us, and if we get six viewers then we break even. And it didn't work out that way. Each time they take the risk based on the last time's results. Their advertisers do the same. And why do the women's teams get better coverage? Because for two years they've been one of the hottest properties in Canadian sports. Wait till they have a bad year--if they ever do again--and you'll see the year after that back to the same old nothin'. Now think what the producer at Sportsnet who had to make the call would have been through if he'd decided to show all the Canada games at the WYC this year, and we hadn't beaten the Czechs. It would have been '01 all over again, and he would have had to explain to his bosses why he had chosen to pay mondo $$$ for this tournament and lost all that money. I'd love to see Sportsnet take these risks too. I'd love to see every Canadian game televised, and I'd love Sportsnet to make off like bandits at the end of the day. But until Canadian soccer is consistently a hot item, we're not going to see it. We qualify for '06 and things will change. Otherwise prepare for at least a few more years of this. Allez les Rouges, M@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 quote:Originally posted by mattbin I don't know why I'm always in the position of defending folks like Sportsnet and the CSA (well, sometimes), but it sure feels that way. However, I don't think it's fair to criticise Sportsnet so roundly here. First, like it or not, businesses typically plan for the last event, not the current event. For example, in '01 they were probably planning for the '97 WYC, and given Canada's excellent showing there they figured it was worth showcasing the new crop of up-and-coming talent. So they showed the qualifiers--which were in Canada anyhow--and the finals. Canada stank out the joint. They were easily beaten from their first minute on the field. No casual viewer was going to tune in to the next match after seeing either of the first two matches. So on to '03. This time, Sportsnet is going to treat it like the last one. They're going to get killed in each match, it's not going to draw any viewers, the rights aren't worth the money--we can replay a lumberjack contest for the $5 it'll cost us, and if we get six viewers then we break even. And it didn't work out that way. Each time they take the risk based on the last time's results. Their advertisers do the same. And why do the women's teams get better coverage? Because for two years they've been one of the hottest properties in Canadian sports. Wait till they have a bad year--if they ever do again--and you'll see the year after that back to the same old nothin'. Now think what the producer at Sportsnet who had to make the call would have been through if he'd decided to show all the Canada games at the WYC this year, and we hadn't beaten the Czechs. It would have been '01 all over again, and he would have had to explain to his bosses why he had chosen to pay mondo $$$ for this tournament and lost all that money. I'd love to see Sportsnet take these risks too. I'd love to see every Canadian game televised, and I'd love Sportsnet to make off like bandits at the end of the day. But until Canadian soccer is consistently a hot item, we're not going to see it. We qualify for '06 and things will change. Otherwise prepare for at least a few more years of this. Allez les Rouges, M@ Your defense has valid points but unfortunately it is based in the incorrect assumption that their programing showing (i.e. soccer) is a business. A TV station or newspaper or radio, is supposed to serve the community. I.e. showing soccer is a service to the community not a means to put money in their pockets. There is no chance that Sportsnet will ever change. They should be let to succumb in their own greediness. What we need is a sports TV station structured more like PBS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayWay Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 In a city with overflowing with all-sports media (multiple TV and radio, sports obsessed newspapers) to suggest that a network like Sportsnet isn't a business and isn't in intense competition is just naive. You would have a point if this was the CBC and it was a government funded initiative, however even in that case, you can't take a step outside of Ontario without having someone bitch about the CBC's catering to the Leaf's due to ratings/money reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayWay Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Woops I mean country, not city. Sorry, there's the Torontonian in me popping out. Sometimes I forget the world doesn't end outside the GTA. Sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilfPTheReal99 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Outside the GTA it's just a world full of sticks, hicks, crows, and ho's, Jay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 quote:Originally posted by mattbin First, like it or not, businesses typically plan for the last event, not the current event. For example, in '01 they were probably planning for the '97 WYC, and given Canada's excellent showing there they figured it was worth showcasing the new crop of up-and-coming talent. I don't understand this paragraph at all - how in 2001 could they be planning for the 1997 WYC? And if they were basing showing the 2001 tourney on how well we did in 1997, that means they also conveniently forgot about the fact that we didn't qualify in 1999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattbin Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca I don't understand this paragraph at all - how in 2001 could they be planning for the 1997 WYC? And if they were basing showing the 2001 tourney on how well we did in 1997, that means they also conveniently forgot about the fact that we didn't qualify in 1999. Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Let's not forget that although I have those couple of degrees in English (useless), I also have a minor in history (double useless). It is typical for generals to plan for their last war, not their next war; witness the French in 1914, or the British in 1939 (anyone remember the Dyle plan?). My point, obscure though it may be, is that last time the U20s were involved, the result was less than Sportsnet expected. The time before, it was more. Or did you expect them to judge the U20s on the basis of their current squad? Would you like to list the honours they have won to date, then? The for-profit networks like the sure thing. They don't like the risks. Direct further questions to those who have the cash to throw away, Inc. As to the other points (the Ref's mainly). Unfortunately we are stuck with a sports medium that is committed to making a profit. It's been 12 years since Short Track speed skating became an important (i.e. olympic) sport; and yet the CBC showed 1 hr of long track speed skating and 2 hrs of (much irrelevant) olympic qualifying wrestling on CBC today. Anyone remmber a short track meet televised recently? No? Point is, CBC will do as it wants, Rogers will do as it can. Be thankful that Soccer Central is now twice a week--they didn't have to do that. It comes back to risk and guaranteed reward; would you bet that Kara Lang would score before Josh Simpson? Yeah, me too; I love Josh to death, just like everyone else, but I'll give Kara odds on scoring her next before Josh. Which would you bet on? Put your own cash up, and soon you'll be hedging your bets, just like Sportsnet does. And they've got thousands at stake, btw, not your monopoly money. Allez les Rouges, M@ P.S. With (new minister) Judy Sgro in charge, don't expect the CBC to have cash to spend on anything at all. She's a poor man's Sheila Copps, at best; bet on Gerry doing the mambo before you bet on Sgro helping the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red card Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 sportsnet sucks because they lack foresight from a business perspective. The only reason they showed the u19 women's is becasue they got it free but they didn't put in thier top tier announcers till the semis. So, basically, they considered it filler programming. In the end, they just got luckly but took the credit for the high ratings. After this lesson, you would think they would be primed to go all out for the Women's World Cup. But again, at the last moment, they only made the decision to show the quarters and semis live. Again, took credit for the ratings. Not showing the u20s is also lack of foresight and knowledge of the soccer scene. It is a leadership issue at SN. It appears there is nobody there looking to build a franchise in a sport other than hockey and baseball. The perfect counter example is TSN and how they build the CFL tv landscape. In this they had Pelley (now Agros prez) who was passioned about the game and had the vision to create Friday Night Football, broadcast all of the games and made the CFL the #1 summer sports TV property over the Jays. At SN, other than showing EPL live, they have not shown any vision in the Canadian soccer scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 quote:Originally posted by red card The perfect counter example is TSN and how they build the CFL tv landscape. In this they had Pelley (now Agros prez) who was passioned about the game and had the vision to create Friday Night Football, broadcast all of the games and made the CFL the #1 summer sports TV property over the Jays. At SN, other than showing EPL live, they have not shown any vision in the Canadian soccer scene. Memmory's a bit foggy but somehow I recall the CFL running their own televison productions for a couple-three years there towards a growing success after no one else wanted to broadcast what the CFL HQ felt was an appropriate number of games (especially before Labour Day). TSN picked up the contract again after seeing the good ratings the broadcast amateurs where pulling in (real eye opener) and have run with the ball as it were, ever since. In fact, I'm quit certain there was a lot of complaining about the quality of the TSN broadcasts after they became the CFLs broadcast network again. People having come to expect more. Took them a couple of years to find their feet but they've stuck the heading and are reaping the rewards all the way to the bank. Great example of thinking outside the box. Our free enterprise system at work. If you can steal something from the other guy and make it better, go for it. Anyway, TSN was forced into a more pro-active (professional?) role by the CFL if they wanted to get back into their market. Including game numbers and appropriate budget levels to present a viewable product to the public. It may have taken the whip to lead TSN to water, but they've sure shown they know how to drink. If the CSA is unhappy with Sportsnet's commitment to bringing football to the Canadian masses and they're afraid no one else will take up the challenge they should maybe think again. Global has always struggled with Canadian content requirments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 quote:Originally posted by mattbin Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Let's not forget that although I have those couple of degrees in English (useless), I also have a minor in history (double useless). It is typical for generals to plan for their last war, not their next war; Or did you expect them to judge the U20s on the basis of their current squad? Would you like to list the honours they have won to date, then? This isn't war, its business & entertainment, and yes, I wouldn't expect them to make a decision by judging this squad by what the 2001 squad did, or any squad in the past. Its all irrelevant though because Sportsnet only showed the 2001 WYC (& Confederations Cup) because the CSA secured the rights for them, while FIFA were the ones to put up the cash for the U19 tournament that Sportsnet rode the coat-tails of. You have to factor that into the historical account of their decision-making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Will you guys, give it up. Sportsnet showed THE GAME! I'm sure the host broadcaster tried to sell the tourney and whom ever owns the CSA rights put the tourney in the salesmens briefcase.If they did not do this , then find a new advert sales manager!it's simple ......we have the rights to the U20 world soccer championship , this is the price for a 30 sec spot, yes or no. Or would you be willing to have the spot you bought for Hazel Mae be converted for U20 soccer??It's the old $$ talks no-body walks:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.