ESPN Dumps The Belmont

[Southieboy]

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2011/02/15/belmont.aspx

[the little guy]

Nothing like an intentionally misleading headline.

[Southieboy]

Why?

[098poi]

Because to the less informed, like me, it looks like the Belmont wasn't going to be televised at all. That's what I thought when I saw title of the thread.

[cj's dad]

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2011/02/15/belmont.aspx

Post when you have something that is important !!

[Robert Goren]

Because to the less informed, like me, it looks like the Belmont wasn't going to be televised at all. That's what I thought when I saw title of the thread.With NBC doing it, it is about as close to not being televised as you can get. Not that ESPN did such a bang up job either.

[the little guy]

Why?


If you don't know why, then why is your headline on another message board completely different?

[Rico8812]

Interestingly, NYRA hired former ESPN exec Len DeLuca to help sell its television and media rights to the Belmont Stakes. A former Senior VP/Programming & Acquisitions, DeLuca left ESPN in September

Jeez, is this a position that was really needed? I'm sure he'll be doing other stuff as well, but seems like hal handel should be able to deal with these sort of things. I mean they are certainly paying him enough to. Paging Bill Nader...

[Stillriledup]

Because to the less informed, like me, it looks like the Belmont wasn't going to be televised at all. That's what I thought when I saw title of the thread.

It says ESPN DUMPS not TV DUMPS.

That's the difference. ESPN isnt the only channel out there, why would you believe its not going to be televised by anyone?

[PaceAdvantage]

If you don't know why, then why is your headline on another message board completely different?Now THIS I find interesting...

[PaceAdvantage]

Interestingly, NYRA hired former ESPN exec Len DeLuca to help sell its television and media rights to the Belmont Stakes. A former Senior VP/Programming & Acquisitions, DeLuca left ESPN in September

Jeez, is this a position that was really needed? I'm sure he'll be doing other stuff as well, but seems like hal handel should be able to deal with these sort of things. I mean they are certainly paying him enough to. Paging Bill Nader...Handel is the Chief Operating Officer at NYRA. Why would he be the guy to be hawking NYRA's TV and Media rights to its most widely recognized and valuable race?

Wouldn't you want an experienced TV and marketing man for that kind of work?

Or was this just another stupid reply made only to throw another cheap shot at somebody working at NYRA?

Yeah, I thought so. Another guy with a chip and a grudge... :lol:

[098poi]

It says ESPN DUMPS not TV DUMPS.

That's the difference. ESPN isnt the only channel out there, why would you believe its not going to be televised by anyone?

You are correct of course. It's just the title of the thread drew me in as being more dramatic and important than it really is. ESPN opted not to bid for renewal and NBC did (or probably will), that's all.

[Stillriledup]

You are correct of course. It's just the title of the thread drew me in as being more dramatic and important than it really is. ESPN opted not to bid for renewal and NBC did, that's all.

I know what you're saying, its sensationalism at its finest! SB probably knows there are a few people here who either work for NYRA or have a love affair with their racing product and he wanted to 'rile' them up a bit.

[PaceAdvantage]

I know what you're saying, its sensationalism at its finest! SB probably knows there are a few people here who either work for NYRA or have a love affair with their racing product and he wanted to 'rile' them up a bit.How sad.

[OTM Al]

Handel is the Chief Operating Officer at NYRA. Why would he be the guy to be hawking NYRA's TV and Media rights to its most widely recognized and valuable race?

Wouldn't you want an experienced TV and marketing man for that kind of work?

Or was this just another stupid reply made only to throw another cheap shot at somebody working at NYRA?

Yeah, I thought so. Another guy with a chip and a grudge... :lol:

Don't you know that two guys working for minimum wage should be able to run NYRA and should be thrilled by the opportunity? Not like they do somewhere around a billion dollars worth of business every year....not that that should mean anything....

[GameTheory]

Are you guys kidding? Sensationalism? Cheap shots? Intentionally misleading?

I'm starting to buy into the theory Chickenhead floated about some of you NY guys being paranoid. The guy posted a link to a article with a absolutely simple and absolutely true header -- "ESPN dumps the Belmont", which is exactly what they did. This is controversial?

[the little guy]

Are you guys kidding? Sensationalism? Cheap shots? Intentionally misleading?

I'm starting to buy into the theory Chickenhead floated about some of you NY guys being paranoid. The guy posted a link to a article with a absolutely simple and absolutely true header -- "ESPN dumps the Belmont", which is exactly what they did. This is controversial?

That's OK, I still buy into my original theory about you.

[GameTheory]

That's OK, I still buy into my original theory about you.That's the second time recently that you've implied I've got some devious agenda. Or something. I'm not really sure what you are implying.

Well, what it is? What the hell are you talking about? Don't be such a coward. Put up or shut up.

[Tom]

"Our contract was up and we elected not to renew. It did not make good business sense to renew so we have moved on and will focus our horse racing coverage on the Breeders' Cup."

ESPN Dumps The Belmont



I'll bite.
What's the diff?

[andicap]

I hate getting in the middle of this little bit of nonsense but as a reporter/editor who used to cover this very beat, I feel a bit compelled to weigh in.

The headline itself "ESPN dumps the Belmont" is technically not incorrect.
But it is not really that accurate either because it doesn't impart the true spirit of what really happened. (I won't comment on SB's intention since I have no clues on the nature of his posts elsewhere or here.)

ESPN "dumped" the race in the context of its contract having expired and it opted not to renew. Its semantics

In sports, if a team elects not to renew a coach's contract the media commonly refers to the situation as a "firing." By not renewing the contract, the team did effectively "dump" the coach.

(In about 1970, WMCA radio did not renew the contract of talk show host Alex Bennett. Fans said the station "dumped" him. The station demurred saying, "He wasn't fired. We just didn't renew his contract." Semantics.)

BUT, if you read the story closely, you'll see that it probably wasn't a case so much of NYRA "dumping" ESPN as electing to go with NBC in order to get the Triple Crown returned to a single network. ESPN is quoted as saying it did not elect to renew the contract because the proffered deal would not have made economic sense.

So the article strongly implies that NYRA didn't "dump" ESPN -- it just made it an offer that ESPN could clearly refuse: Namely, it demanded a very large rights fee that NYRA knew ESPN could never accept.

If ESPN did surprise NYRA by accepting, well NYRA gets a good deal. If ESPN does the expected and declines a bad deal, then NYRA gets its wish and restores the entire Triple Crown to a single network.

That's a move that makes sense since the TC is really a single entity. If NBC airs the Preakness, what incentive does it have to promote the Belmont if ESPN owns the rights? NYRA and the other TC tracks can work with NBC on common promotional schemes. In the same vein, if ESPN only has the Belmont Stakes, why would it throw a lot of promotional resources behind the Derby and Preakness?

ESPN clearly recognized the Belmont held little economic value for it without the Derby/Preakness and would have renewed only if NYRA had offered a sweetheart deal.

Bottom-line: ESPN "dumps" the Belmont is technically accurate but is highly misleading.

At least that's my reading of the matter.

[Charli125]

I think it's great that NBC will televise all 3 legs. It gives them a chance to market it, everyone has NBC if they have a TV, and they've done a great job with other sports in the past.

I know ESPN is seen as the holy grail of all things sport by a lot of people out there, but I think this is a positive change.

[FenceBored]

Does this mean the Acorn will be on Bravo?

[GameTheory]

I hate getting in the middle of this little bit of nonsense but as a reporter/editor who used to cover this very beat, I feel a bit compelled to weigh in.

The headline itself "ESPN dumps the Belmont" is technically not incorrect.
But it is not really that accurate either because it doesn't impart the true spirit of what really happened. (I won't comment on SB's intention since I have no clues on the nature of his posts elsewhere or here.)

ESPN "dumped" the race in the context of its contract having expired and it opted not to renew. Its semantics

In sports, if a team elects not to renew a coach's contract the media commonly refers to the situation as a "firing." By not renewing the contract, the team did effectively "dump" the coach.

(In about 1970, WMCA radio did not renew the contract of talk show host Alex Bennett. Fans said the station "dumped" him. The station demurred saying, "He wasn't fired. We just didn't renew his contract." Semantics.)

BUT, if you read the story closely, you'll see that it probably wasn't a case so much of NYRA "dumping" ESPN as electing to go with NBC in order to get the Triple Crown returned to a single network. ESPN is quoted as saying it did not elect to renew the contract because the proffered deal would not have made economic sense.

So the article strongly implies that NYRA didn't "dump" ESPN -- it just made it an offer that ESPN could clearly refuse: Namely, it demanded a very large rights fee that NYRA knew ESPN could never accept.

If ESPN did surprise NYRA by accepting, well NYRA gets a good deal. If ESPN does the expected and declines a bad deal, then NYRA gets its wish and restores the entire Triple Crown to a single network.

That's a move that makes sense since the TC is really a single entity. If NBC airs the Preakness, what incentive does it have to promote the Belmont if ESPN owns the rights? NYRA and the other TC tracks can work with NBC on common promotional schemes. In the same vein, if ESPN only has the Belmont Stakes, why would it throw a lot of promotional resources behind the Derby and Preakness?

ESPN clearly recognized the Belmont held little economic value for it without the Derby/Preakness and would have renewed only if NYRA had offered a sweetheart deal.

Bottom-line: ESPN "dumps" the Belmont is technically accurate but is highly misleading.

At least that's my reading of the matter. So a better headline would have been "Belmont dumps ESPN"?

That may or may not be true, but it isn't in the article. It just said ESPN is dropping out, that they don't want it for economic reasons -- which could be the deal offered or they just really don't want it. You're implying that NBC will now get it for less than ESPN could have, which the article doesn't even hint at. (Or that what is a bad deal for ESPN is a somehow a good deal for NBC -- maybe it is.) And the NBC thing is not a done deal either, for either the Belmont OR the Preakness.

[Tom]

So a better headline would have been "Belmont dumps ESPN"?

How about "Check your local listings." :sleeping:

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you guys kidding? Sensationalism? Cheap shots? Intentionally misleading?The cheap shot was the bringing of Hal Handel into the conversation...as if he should be the guy negotiating a deal for NYRA's TV and Media rights to this race.

That's where the cheap shot comment came from. No paranoia to report on this end.

[andicap]

So a better headline would have been "Belmont dumps ESPN"?

That may or may not be true, but it isn't in the article. It just said ESPN is dropping out, that they don't want it for economic reasons -- which could be the deal offered or they just really don't want it. You're implying that NBC will now get it for less than ESPN could have, which the article doesn't even hint at. (Or that what is a bad deal for ESPN is a somehow a good deal for NBC -- maybe it is.) And the NBC thing is not a done deal either, for either the Belmont OR the Preakness.

Not at all. The Belmont is worth much more to NBC than it is to ESPN because the Peacock has the other two legs. So NBC would be willing to pay more for the rights. Originally, ESPN probably figured that it could gain value from having the Breeders Cup and the Belmont but that those two events are very complementary.

Of course the NBC deal is not done, but it should be wrapped up soon. The race makes absolutely no sense for any other network. And in any kind of "trade" story -- which this is -- you have to know how to read between the lines because the writers must hint at what they can't say straight out. Believe me, I've been there a million times.

The big clue is the point the writer made that NYRA wants all three legs under one roof. The Belmont has much more value when one network has all three -- more value to the network and more value to the racing association. Basically the pie gets bigger.

[Southieboy]

The NBC Sports Group will broadcast all three legs of horse racing’s prestigious Triple Crown, renewing the rights to the Preakness Stakes and reacquiring rights to the Belmont Stakes. As previously announced, NBC and Churchill Downs, Inc. renewed rights to the Kentucky Derby. This marks the first time that all three races will be on one network since NBC aired them in 2005.

The agreements include coverage of the Black Eyed Susan Stakes and other Preakness-day and Belmont-day programming on VERSUS. Additionally, expanded Derby week programming including the Kentucky Oaks and Derby day programming will air on VERSUS. In all, the NBC Sports Group will broadcast more than 25 hours of Triple Crown coverage.

http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/sports/nbcsports/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2011/02/22/nbcsportsgroupr1298391541945.xml

[Tom]

In all, the NBC Sports Group will broadcast more than 25 hours of Triple Crown coverage.

Does this include the 18 hours of hat coverage? And the 5 hours of breakdown replays? :rolleyes:

[Track Phantom]

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2011/02/15/belmont.aspx


Yawn!

[andicap]

Of course the NBC deal is not done, but it should be wrapped up soon. The race makes absolutely no sense for any other network. And in any kind of "trade" story -- which this is -- you have to know how to read between the lines because the writers must hint at what they can't say straight out. Believe me, I've been there a million times.
.

ahem.