Stations Without Sports

[BadatWhatIdo]

I know sports doesn't make much of a difference in ratings... but does anyone know how stations are doing in the book without a sports deparment. Wichita... Omaha... anyother Sinclair's... how many out there don't do sports?

[ January 26, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: BadatWhatIdo ]

[The Invisible Swordsman]

WICS the NBC in Springfield, Illinois is down to one full time sports person.

[RoyMcAvoy]

It's a plague throughout the "non-sports markets" Emmis stations. For example, Green Bay would never go without sports. Some would even say that station is viable BECAUSE they are the Packers' primary station.

Wichita and Omaha are without sports. Topeka was without sports for few years, but it's back, albeit very weakened from long ago.

I had to call for sports video from Anchorage recently and heard..."Uh, we don't have a sports department, uh."

[skewT]

Let's face sports are just not that important in many markets. I mean how many times can you talk about the minor league baseball team in Omaha. A whole 500 people were at the game. The majority of the population doesn't care, and women really don't watch sports. That my friend is why they are at the end of the show. Don't get me wrong I love sports, but if I want a score I go to the web or ESPN so I can get the score right away instead of waiting unitl 11.

[Major Kaos]

Originally posted by skewT in 05:
Let's face sports are just not that important in many markets. I mean how many times can you talk about the minor league baseball team in Omaha. A whole 500 people were at the game. The majority of the population doesn't care, and women really don't watch sports. That my friend is why they are at the end of the show. Don't get me wrong I love sports, but if I want a score I go to the web or ESPN so I can get the score right away instead of waiting unitl 11.I've said it before... I'll say it again. Little league... high school sports... THAT'S the future of local TV sports.

[Rex Kwan Do]

Originally posted by BadatWhatIdo:
I know sports doesn't make much of a difference in ratings.That's not entirely true. It's a market by market case.

For majority of small and mid markets with no major pro or college team in the city/region to rally around this is probably true.

[Marley]

Little League the future of sports... go to bed.

[Lynn Glitzke]

I work in a small market in a state that is sports crazy. I also anchored sports for years, before now anchoring news for several more years, and give advice to our sports guys.

We have a different philosophy that I would like your opinion of. We cover the big pro teams (highlights, sound bites, breaking news on them from the station we are affiliated with in that market, and we go to training camp and a game or two) that have huge regional interest because that is what people are talking about and care about here, even though we are a few hundred miles away.

We also take care of the local college and high schools and look for human interest sports stories as much as we can. During high school football season, which is popular here, we do our own Friday night show.

We have a Monday-Friday Sports Director and a weekend sports guy who reports sports one day a week during the week (usually Firday nights) and news the other two to make it a five day workweek.

Are we the intelligent wave of the future for some stations to consider?

[Lynn Glitzke]

Oh yeah, we are a dominant #1.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Captain Kaos:
I've said it before... I'll say it again. Little league... high school sports... THAT'S the future of local TV sports.I'm not sure there is ANY sort of future for TV sports segments ... but if I'm wrong I will bet my inlaws' life savings it doesn't lie in Little League and high School sports.

[adam & doctor drew]

you hit it on the head Lynn.... cover what PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

and that is certainly not little league.

the previous poster joked about 500 people being at the minor-league game.... well how many are at the local little league game?

30?

and some of you think THAT'S the future of sports?

[Nigel Wick]

Little League may not be the future of local sports, but go to a game once in a while. I'm sure you'll find a story without looking too hard. Chances are is will be a good "people" story.

[sonorandesert]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Captain Kaos:
I've said it before... I'll say it again. Little league... high school sports... THAT'S the future of local TV sports.I'm not sure there is ANY sort of future for TV sports segments ... but if I'm wrong I will bet my inlaws' life savings it doesn't lie in Little League and high School sports.</font>[/QUOTE]Ever spend time in the South?
Ever hear of the Little League WORLD SERIES?
Ever see a Friday Night HS Football game?
Ever see a Friday Night HS Football game in the South?

I'll take that bet!

[morning guy]

The Omaha station that dropped sports is a distant third. They also dropped their 6:00 a while back. To KMTV's credit they do a 30 minute sports show Sunday night and they air some Creighton basketball games.

[sinclairscared]

Sigh.
As always, NEWS types discussing the nightly sportscast, or, I suppose, the lack thereof.
They all have opinions on how to do it "right"...
(bigger sigh)
May we please hear from some sports people?

[Marley]

As a Sports Director I try not to give the national stories a lot of attention, however I can't ignore them. Take for example Terrell Owens playing/not playing in the Super Bowl. I hit that once this week but it's not a daily vo. I cannot and will not compete with ESPN on stories like that.

I've learned that a perfect sportscast is a vob on the local pro or college team, a local feature, and either a quick national story or a funny kicker.

Someone told me a long time ago that any great company is dominant across the board, and that holds true for a tv station. You can't be great in product development, marketing, and then be piss poor in shipping and receiving. Just like a tv station can't expect to be good when it either doesn't do sports or has a minimal committment. Most dominant stations across the country devote resources to sports. It's not the most important part of a newscast but it's part of the entire equation.

Just my thougts.

[Major Kaos]

Originally posted by sonorandesert:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Captain Kaos:
I've said it before... I'll say it again. Little league... high school sports... THAT'S the future of local TV sports.I'm not sure there is ANY sort of future for TV sports segments ... but if I'm wrong I will bet my inlaws' life savings it doesn't lie in Little League and high School sports.</font>[/QUOTE]Ever spend time in the South?
Ever hear of the Little League WORLD SERIES?
Ever see a Friday Night HS Football game?
Ever see a Friday Night HS Football game in the South?

I'll take that bet!</font>[/QUOTE]thanks for backing me up... we cover a lot of that at my station.. and it gets em watching.. parents.. relatives.. friends all want to see "little Billy" on TV. it's local, it's sports, and it's something people can't get on ESPN or online.

[bpa630]

I'm a weekend sports guy in a medium market and I pretty much agree with everything here. You've gotta get "Little Billy" on as much as you can but at the same time can't lose track of the regional stuff. Sportscenter has finally out-Sportscenterd itself when it comes to highlights, especially baseball. I always show 20 or 30 seconds from the major league teams up the freeway because what casual sports fan wants to sit through Sportscenter anymore? A lot of sports fans just want the top few plays, the score and where they sit in the division. To get that from Sportscenter now, I've gotta sit through 10 minutes of whaever their story of the moment is (right now it's TO every day, over this past summer it was whatever the Lakers did today... it gets boring)... If I can make it through that endless first block then I've still gotta sit through the Budweister Hotseat, whatever 8 minute piece Chris Conley has been working on and a half dozen talking head "analysts" delving into ESPN's new specialty of trying to answer unanswerable questions. That's why I think it's important to keep that regional stuff in there, so Joe Blow local viewer can tune into his news at 10:25, get his highlights and score and go to bed so he can get to his construction job at 7am.
Throw in big coverage of local college, a feature from little league if there is one, a couple high school basketball highlights, etc... that's what I usually do.

[wxcaster]

Most surveys show viewers watch mainly for weather (around 40 percent), next crime/courts, sports is usually way down the line with about 6 percent.

[JimmyChitwood]

Originally posted by Marley:
Someone told me a long time ago that any great company is dominant across the board, and that holds true for a tv station. You can't be great in product development, marketing, and then be piss poor in shipping and receiving. Just like a tv station can't expect to be good when it either doesn't do sports or has a minimal committment. Most dominant stations across the country devote resources to sports. It's not the most important part of a newscast but it's part of the entire equation.well put. this topic has come up before and I can't put it any more clearly than this: no station will ever be #1 in a market without a sports department. EVER.

maybe you can make more money being #2 without sports. fine. but you won't be #1.

there are times in every market when a sports story crosses over to news and becomes the lead. frankly it happens much more frequently than you think. and that's when stations need credible people to be able to talk about it. not just the generic reporter who happened to get the story that day.

keeping sports means you have that angle covered, plus you continue to appeal to the percentage of the audience who really enjoy that part of the show. that 6% number wxcaster tried to throw out is incredibly misleading. do a lot of people watch specifically for sports? no. but if you give them a choice of a cast with sports and without, they'll choose the one with.

finally, bpa630 made a great point about SportsCenter. it is no longer a source to catch up on highlights. it has turned into an analysis and opinion forum. and it takes FOREVER to get to the specific game you want to see. so the argument "fans can just get the highlight on SC" is increasingly irrelevant.

will local sports departments continue to shrink? sure. but no station that drops it entirely will ever be #1. mark my words.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by wxcaster:
Most surveys show viewers watch mainly for weather (around 40 percent), next crime/courts, sports is usually way down the line with about 6 percent.a) and this is relevant to this thread how?
b) if that's true, how come no local station has ever come up with the idea for a half-hour local daily weather show?
no news, no sports, just weather for 30 straight minutes?

you and I know both the reason: if you promoted that you were running a show with JUST weather, just our guy pointing at a map for a half-hour, no one would watch.

no one.

[Illini]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wxcaster:
Most surveys show viewers watch mainly for weather (around 40 percent), next crime/courts, sports is usually way down the line with about 6 percent.a) and this is relevant to this thread how?
b) if that's true, how come no local station has ever come up with the idea for a half-hour local daily weather show?
no news, no sports, just weather for 30 straight minutes?

you and I know both the reason: if you promoted that you were running a show with JUST weather, just our guy pointing at a map for a half-hour, no one would watch.

no one.</font>[/QUOTE]Does The Weather Channel ring a bell? I'm a sports guy, but the above argument was pretty silly. The numbers, while I can't confirm or deny the 40% and 6%, aren't too far off. People tune in to see what the weather will be like tomorrow and the day after, but not to get in-depth information that a half-hour show would give. Apples to apples please.

[JimmyChitwood]

Originally posted by Illini:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wxcaster:
Most surveys show viewers watch mainly for weather (around 40 percent), next crime/courts, sports is usually way down the line with about 6 percent.a) and this is relevant to this thread how?
b) if that's true, how come no local station has ever come up with the idea for a half-hour local daily weather show?
no news, no sports, just weather for 30 straight minutes?

you and I know both the reason: if you promoted that you were running a show with JUST weather, just our guy pointing at a map for a half-hour, no one would watch.

no one.</font>[/QUOTE]Does The Weather Channel ring a bell? I'm a sports guy, but the above argument was pretty silly. The numbers, while I can't confirm or deny the 40% and 6%, aren't too far off. People tune in to see what the weather will be like tomorrow and the day after, but not to get in-depth information that a half-hour show would give. Apples to apples please.</font>[/QUOTE]yeah but the weather guys like to throw around survey numbers like it makes them something special.

the fact is that 99% of the audience is interested in weather... FOR 30 SECONDS.

instead of focusing on the latter number, wx folks like to focus on the first. I can't blame them, but I'm also not gonna let them get away with it.

P.S.- check the ratings for Weather Channel vs ESPN.

[RoyMcAvoy]

Yes, don't give me the ESPN SportsCenter argument. I TiVo SC at 4am each night, watch it the next morning is less than four minutes. I'm amazed at how much fluff is packed in, between Hot Seat, Fact or Fiction and the endless NBA Breakdowns of JANUARY REGULAR SEASON GAMES. It's bad.

They have become much less highlight-driven as ESPNEWS covers much of that. SC is no longer a must-watch. Thanks to the Internet and the regional cable sports outlets, 90% of interested sports fans already know the results BEFORE SC even comes on.

I'll say this for what I do. There is a certain consistency to flipping the TV on at 10:25, getting your four minutes of what is going on WITHIN THE MARKET every day. It's there every night, you don't have to wait through the latest of Kobe Bryant or Donovan McNabb.

As for content, I was, originally, a local highlight freak, showing the most in town. I still do that, but now I gravitate towards the high-end features. Now that I'm a parent, I see those stories a lot more.

[Produce man]

Originally posted by Captain Kaos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sonorandesert:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Captain Kaos:
I've said it before... I'll say it again. Little league... high school sports... THAT'S the future of local TV sports.I'm not sure there is ANY sort of future for TV sports segments ... but if I'm wrong I will bet my inlaws' life savings it doesn't lie in Little League and high School sports.</font>[/QUOTE]Ever spend time in the South?
Ever hear of the Little League WORLD SERIES?
Ever see a Friday Night HS Football game?
Ever see a Friday Night HS Football game in the South?

I'll take that bet!</font>[/QUOTE]thanks for backing me up... we cover a lot of that at my station.. and it gets em watching.. parents.. relatives.. friends all want to see "little Billy" on TV. it's local, it's sports, and it's something people can't get on ESPN or online.</font>[/QUOTE]So, you're essentially running a series of kickers. No one really cares about the highlights, they're just interested in watching little Billy on "Tee-Vee". That's pretty pathetic.

[southwesternguy]

I get so tired of hearing the weather vs. sports argument. It's all been said before. "Sometimes 100,00 people sit through a three hour football game, but how many would come to campus to see a three hour weather seminar?"

"Weather affects peoples' lives, just look at the tsunami....sports is just a stupid hobby that doesn't affect anyone's life."

Give me a break.

I've worked in T.V. news for 5 years, and I have literally never sat and watched an entire weather segment. NEVER!!! I'm still alive, still in one piece. Yes, I've been caught in the rain without an umbrella a few times, but I think I'll be O.K. I've also worn long pants on an unexpected 90-degree day, but I think I made it through just fine. I don't understand why weather people have this high and mighty complex like they're curing cancer or birthing babies. A previous poster said it best, people want to watch weather for 30 seconds to see the five day forecast, and what it's going to be like in the morning.

Personally, I can just turn on the internet at any time, 24 hours a day, and find that information, without ever having to wait around to see it. I can also tune to the weather channel and see the forecast just about any time I want. Get over yourselves weather people.

I think part of the problem is with the way in which research is conducted, and how the questions are phrased. I've never seen a questionnaire, but I'd love to answer one. I live in a market with about 3-million people, and I highly doubt that the most important thing in the lives of 1.2 million of them is whether it rains or not. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

For the sports people: I'm a sports guy myself. We also need a reality check sometimes. When that star pitcher is traded, it's no great tragedy. It doesn't adversly affect the fans' lives when that guy leaves town. Life goes on. Let's stop acting like it's the end of the world when a guy is rumored to be traded, or out for the year with an injury. Just like the weather, it's important to people in our communities, but not critical. Let's just all do our jobs, and try to educate and entertain, and do our jobs to the best of their ability.

All of the decisions about our fate are not by us anyway. They're made in some office upstairs, and we have no control over it. Let's just be thankful that we can do jobs that we enjoy everyday, and quit the childish bickering. Weather people have it pounded into their heads that they are uber-important, so they walk around all cocky about it, and sports guys get their time cut, and are always told that they don't matter, so they get an inferiority complex.

Weather people, be as accurate as you can, and tell us it's going to be beautiful for the rest of the week, and do it with a smile on your face. If you do that, then for the most part, you've done your job.

Sports people, turn an interesting people story a couple times a week, and give us all the news and updates about the teams we care about in our respective communities. If you do that, then for the most part, you've done your job.

It's not much more complicated that that.

[Illini]

the fact is that 99% of the audience is interested in weather... FOR 30 SECONDS.
QB]Absolutely...you said in one sentence what I was trying to get out in a paragraph. I totally agree, and still think it's apples to oranges. graemlins/face_banghead.gif smile.gif

[The Invisible Swordsman]

Most surveys show viewers watch mainly for weather (around 40 percent), next crime/courts, sports is usually way down the line with about 6 percent. Help me out. Can someone point me to the all w eather talk radio station in town? I can not wait to talk about the upcoming effect of the Alberta Clipper coming out of the Canadian Rockies. I am a huge fan of thermoclines; I wonder what they are up to in the off-season? Anyone have any thoughts on the Walker Circulation? In winter with the rising branch near the "maritime continent" of greater Indonesia... well anyway I will hang up and listen for your response. Go Walker Circulation!!!!!!

[ January 27, 2005, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: The Invisible Swordsman ]

[Major Kaos]

Originally posted by Produce man:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Captain Kaos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sonorandesert:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Captain Kaos:
I've said it before... I'll say it again. Little league... high school sports... THAT'S the future of local TV sports.I'm not sure there is ANY sort of future for TV sports segments ... but if I'm wrong I will bet my inlaws' life savings it doesn't lie in Little League and high School sports.</font>[/QUOTE]Ever spend time in the South?
Ever hear of the Little League WORLD SERIES?
Ever see a Friday Night HS Football game?
Ever see a Friday Night HS Football game in the South?

I'll take that bet!</font>[/QUOTE]thanks for backing me up... we cover a lot of that at my station.. and it gets em watching.. parents.. relatives.. friends all want to see "little Billy" on TV. it's local, it's sports, and it's something people can't get on ESPN or online.</font>[/QUOTE]So, you're essentially running a series of kickers. No one really cares about the highlights, they're just interested in watching little Billy on "Tee-Vee". That's pretty pathetic.</font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps our area is a bit unique. We usually have HS football teams that go to the state finals... and little league teams that make it through the playoffs. Maybe we're biased.

[Illini]

Originally posted by The Invisible Swordsman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Most surveys show viewers watch mainly for weather (around 40 percent), next crime/courts, sports is usually way down the line with about 6 percent. Help me out. Can someone point me to the all w eather talk radio station in town? I can not wait to talk about the upcoming effect of the Alberta Clipper coming out of the Canadian Rockies. I am a huge fan of thermoclines; I wonder what they are up to in the off-season? Anyone have any thoughts on the Walker Circulation? In winter with the rising branch near the "maritime continent" of greater Indonesia... well anyway I will hang up and listen for your response. Go Walker Circulation!!!!!!</font>[/QUOTE]You're still missing the point. TV news is about money. If I'm running a station, and I realize that the majority of my viewers will be watching the weather segment (and can prove that with the numbers above), then I can, theoretically, charge more for commercials around this block. If the numbers show only 6% tune in for sports, then sports won't be my priority.
That being said, I TOTALLY agree sports is a necessity for every #1 station. Same goes for weather. The question of how many people would listen to an "all-weather" radio station or watch a half-hour weather show is totally irrelevant to this discussion (and I think we've strayed quite a bit off topic already anyway).
BTW, a 24-hour news station I used to work at pulled its largest ratings ever the day of a blizzard in early 2000 where they were running a ton of weather-related information in the crawl, and doing almost exclusive weather features and forecasts. To this day, it's this station's best day. So please don't say viewers aren't interested in weather.
Oh, and also to the poster who mentioned going online to get the weather...I can also go online and get the sports scores and highlights much quicker than waiting for them on TV. IMHO, all this closed-mindedness is why TV news is becoming more and more irrelevant to many people. If TV news can't adapt, it will become obsolete.

[PSUWx]

For some stations, the demographic that watches sports, or cares about local sports, or otherwise has their children involved in local sports...Is a high-buying demogrpahic that's easy to sell.

...Even if most of the eyeballs that are looking for news are octogenarian shut-ins checking to see if their neighborhood watch made the news with their scanner-manning.

Local sports can make some money for TV.

[BadatWhatIdo]

My reason for starting this thread was not to start a defend sports coverage versus weather coverage debate. We all know that people want to see what matter's to them. Everyone cares what the weather will be like tomorrow. Yes, there are lots of places to find that information but it is an important part of local news. I hope we would all agree that for a good portion of the potential audience.. how their local sports teams (high school/college) and regional teams (pros in non pro markets) do each night matters. The human interest of these sports teams also brings people to the TV. I have worked in a few shops that were very highlight intensive... overkill can happen. Highlights are important telling stories is more important. I believe and at the end of the day that's what brings people to the TV set. In short, I don't think any TV station that exists to provide a public service is doing it's best to provide the viewing public a service by not including sports. 40% or 6% or whatever.

[Girt B. Frobe]

You ask any person along the street and the top 3 answers for watching the news is:

1. Weather
2. Sports
3. News

Why weather, to see what it will be like tomorrow. But the reason Sports ranks so highly is b/c you go to any basketball, football, soccer, little league game, etc. and some parent sees you their....... Guess what? Every person at that game just tuned into your station at 6 & 11 to see the highlights. Will anything over take weather.... probably not. But the soul purpose of local TV is LOCAL! With the internet, and cable news shows, why would anyone tune into you if you run the same thing they do? Local stations cannot compete with Cable News Outlets, Internet, or ESPN.

Also one other key point is the talent. People tune in to see a personality, plain and simple. If you have good guys and people know them, viewers tune in.

Dude's 2 cents anyways.......

[Girt B. Frobe]

Oh yeah by the way..... our competing station dropped sports. If you look at the books, after the first 8 minutes of news they switch to us for weather & sports. I agree with "Badatwhatido" public service includes sports. Why do you think fantasy sports is such a big hit if no one wants to watch sports?

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Illini:
A 24-hour station I used to work at pulled its largest ratings ever the day of a blizzard in early 2000 where they were running a ton of weather-related information in the crawl, and doing almost exclusive weather features and forecasts. To this day, it's this station's best day. So please don't say viewers aren't interested in weather.[/QB][/QUOTE]

simple explanation for that, Illini:
In a blizzard, PEOPLE ARE STUCK IN THE HOUSE.

what kind of ratings does any station get for its team coverage of a heat wave in the middle of summer?

not as much, right?

[Illini]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />QB]simple explanation for that, Illini:
In a blizzard, PEOPLE ARE STUCK IN THE HOUSE.

what kind of ratings does any station get for its team coverage of a heat wave in the middle of summer?

not as much, right?</font>[/QUOTE]Geez...I'm stuck in the house. I can ALSO watch SPORTS if I choose.

Heat wave...same city, summer of '95. People were DYING in a heat wave...very good ratings for the news channels and their team coverage of how hot it'd get, how long it'd stay hot, how many have died, where to go to get cool if you don't have A/C.

Next? Keep 'em comin'...I'm rather enjoying your attempts to say weather is irrelevent.

[RoyMcAvoy]

I'm never saying the weather is irrelevant. I just don't need it six times during a 30-minute newscast.

Here is another reason, one never mentioned, that NDs also look to. WEATHER IS CHEAP. Unless you have hurricanes or blizzards, weather doesn't take up field cameras, gas, man-hours, tapes, etc. High-price computer equipment, yes, but weather is very cheap to produce. Not that NDs look at the bottom line in most angles of their operations or anything.

As for sports, most of us in it understand our pecking order in things. We all "get it" as to why our paychecks are usually smaller and even why sports directors work 20-25 weekends a year in most markets, if not more, as part of the normal schedule. (Try getting a news anchor to cheerfully come in on a Saturday to cover city council...oh, that's right, most of them never leave the TV palace except to go home or get their dinner).'

To the first question, I can't think, off-hand, of any more shops without sports. But a #1 station without sports is a rare bird. Sports may be a loss-leader for some, but it's no different than why Circuit City has more sales than Joe's Camera Hut, even though they both sell cameras. Joe's may have a higher profit-margin per dollar but Circuit City has a higher volume. Just depends what kind of TV station you work at: Circuit City or the Hut.

[Run's House]

Weather is without a doubt the most important service local news provides to its customers. No question. ND's want to drive that point home every single day, so when the crap hits the fan you can get the most viewers. Research in my market shows that the number 3 station has the most trusted WX guy during severe weather situations only (the other stations have personality driven WX people). The same theory can apply to sports. Does the sportscast realy matter 80%-90% of the year in most markets? No, not at all. But when the SEC team you cover is going to a BCS game for the first time, what do you think everyone is talking about? My former ND, although a big fat jerk, was right about sports. Day-to-Day it doesn't have much of an effect. But step it up when the big events come along...that's all most sports guys want. As a former sports guy myself I hated the dismissal of sports during bigger events. We had our niche during the football season and we got a little more help from the ND, but not much. 3,000 people at a HS FB game or 20 at a city council? The math seems pretty easy, even though it is just to see "Billy on the Tee-Vee." That gets people in the tent for bigger events, just like Nexrad/Doppler 8 billion/futurecast/Vipir...and all that other technology that's helpful in severe WX.

[ January 28, 2005, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Run's House ]

[Duh]

Originally posted by morning guy:
The Omaha station that dropped sports is a distant third. They also dropped their 6:00 a while back. To KMTV's credit they do a 30 minute sports show Sunday night and they air some Creighton basketball games.Anyone who spent 10 minutes in Omaha knows that Nebraskans live and breathe the Huskers.

Bet it was an uninformed corporate decision to drop sports.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Illini:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />QB]simple explanation for that, Illini:
In a blizzard, PEOPLE ARE STUCK IN THE HOUSE.

what kind of ratings does any station get for its team coverage of a heat wave in the middle of summer?

not as much, right?</font>[/QUOTE]Geez...I'm stuck in the house. I can ALSO watch SPORTS if I choose.

Heat wave...same city, summer of '95. People were DYING in a heat wave...very good ratings for the news channels and their team coverage of how hot it'd get, how long it'd stay hot, how many have died, where to go to get cool if you don't have A/C.

Next? Keep 'em comin'...I'm rather enjoying your attempts to say weather is irrelevent.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm having a problem finding the post where I said weather was irrelevant, or as you claim, "irrelevent."

Wonder why that is?

[spts]

well if we are saying that nobody cares about a minor league baseball game that has 500 people....

does that mean a news story in the FIRST block, that has 29 people at a meeting..IS what EVERYBODY wants to know??????

and why does a meth bust story make first block, when it affects NOBODY that doesnt do meth???

basically....why doesnt news have to answer the questions sports does to justify it's existance.

if news thinks EVERY story in their blocks matter to the entire audience....they are dead wrong.

i am NOT saying sports is close to being the most important thing..but if you dont think its a valuable tool for your entire station..then in my humble opinion...you are a DUMBA*S

[morning guy]

It comes down to your market. Every market will find different things important. I'm a former sports guy and when I worked in Texas we covered Little League games during the summer. These were usually bigger, championship type games. We also had a University and we devoted a lot of time to covering those teams. Did we do national stories? You bet. It depends on the story. You need to know what works in your community and what people want to see.

[Illini]

I'm having a problem finding the post where I said weather was irrelevant, or as you claim, "irrelevent."

Wonder why that is?[/QB]You're right (and yes, I'm over-reliant on spell check! smile.gif ). However, from your postings here, I'd argue that you're at least implying weather isn't that important, no? If not, what ARE you trying to say? I'm saying weather is indeed an important element of a good newscast and is indeed why a majority of people tune in. Whether these same people want to watch news and sports...possibly. Not part of my argument. Also whether someone would want to sit and religiously watch a half-hour weather show every night when there isn't serious trouble brewing, also not my point. I agree with you on that. But the 4:00 every night in the C block, yes, they watch that all the time. And I also have agreed that both sports and weather need to be in every top-rated 'cast...I think we agree there. Again, my point is that it's about money...if you get the majority of your viewers for ONE SEGMENT, you need to devote a lot of time to it, yes?

[ January 28, 2005, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Illini ]

[Another side]

A couple of observations:

I'd agree (without really knowing) that it's unlikely there are newscasts without sports segments that are number 1 in their market. But I think that's because doing away with sports is a fairly new trend (?) that is more bottom-line oriented than not, and its a decision only non top-rated stations must consider. If you're number 1, there's no reason to change anything.

Also, there seems to be an assumption that because 25 people attend a city council meeting, only 25 people care what went on. That's absurd. Hell, that's WHY we have newscasts and newspapers. I don't know how many people actually attend the Super Bowl ... but I know millions are interested world-wide. I don't know how many actually watch thier state legislatures at work, but I know hundreds of thousands in any given state are interested in what the legislators do or don't do.

You cannot base news decisions on who shows up; you base them on who stays home.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

if stations are only gonna give sports 1:30 or less at 6:27 pm, they absolutely SHOULD get rid of it altogether.

either do it right or don't do it at all.

[Midwest Sporto]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
you hit it on the head Lynn.... cover what PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

and that is certainly not little league.

the previous poster joked about 500 people being at the minor-league game.... well how many are at the local little league game?

30?

and some of you think THAT'S the future of sports?yeah, 30 at the game...but when you keep going day after day...soccer mom types out there begin to notice. Trust me, we get tons of emails(received one today from a Bowling-mom) They watch our "kid" stuff, and want to be a part of it.

They start watching to see if their 8 year old made the show. It's called building an audience, and it takes commitment and time. 1 game=30 people?
OK then: 1000 games over the course of a few years =30,000 potential viewers.

While fans of the Pros and big state U's can get their scores and highlights on sportscenter. Mom, Dad, and Grandma Gertie can't see little Johnny and little Tammy play soccer on ESPN.

It's not about showing games as highlights, but in featues like a "team of the week"..or a "fan of the day"

We certainly don't ignore the local colleges, and minor league teams. But unlke the rest of our market..it's not the only thing we cover. I'm in a market where one station has dropped sports, but they still run the big U highlights in the newscast and program live coverage of games. I think THAT is the future...because stations can make more $$ from live broadcasts

[Major Kaos]

Originally posted by Midwest Sporto:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
you hit it on the head Lynn.... cover what PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

and that is certainly not little league.

the previous poster joked about 500 people being at the minor-league game.... well how many are at the local little league game?

30?

and some of you think THAT'S the future of sports?yeah, 30 at the game...but when you keep going day after day...soccer mom types out there begin to notice. Trust me, we get tons of emails(received one today from a Bowling-mom) They watch our "kid" stuff, and want to be a part of it.

They start watching to see if their 8 year old made the show. It's called building an audience, and it takes commitment and time. 1 game=30 people?
OK then: 1000 games over the course of a few years =30,000 potential viewers.

While fans of the Pros and big state U's can get their scores and highlights on sportscenter. Mom, Dad, and Grandma Gertie can't see little Johnny and little Tammy play soccer on ESPN.

It's not about showing games as highlights, but in featues like a "team of the week"..or a "fan of the day"

We certainly don't ignore the local colleges, and minor league teams. But unlke the rest of our market..it's not the only thing we cover. I'm in a market where one station has dropped sports, but they still run the big U highlights in the newscast and program live coverage of games. I think THAT is the future...because stations can make more $$ from live broadcasts</font>[/QUOTE]a-freakin'-men!