Gophers at New Mexico State - TV Broadcast Situation

Donate To GopherHole
RodentRampage said:
If you look in the football media guide it will show which games were televised.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I had looked at the year by year schedules, but wasn't exactly sure how accurate those are. The media guide is giving me a little memory jog. In 85/86, they ran the first two OOC games on KITN (The Kitten That Roars). That's channel 29 now. There were some games on TBS, but I wouldn't have seen those. Most years had 1-3 games on TV (split between ESPN and ABC). In 94, MSC aired every game. After that, the majority of games have been televised.
 

Gopherprof said:
Those three channels were free. If my cable bill was free I wouldn't complain.
Click to expand...

Precisely. I read an article a few months ago that said the average household pays $88 per month for cable or satellite service. They predicted that will rise to $125 per month by 2015.

Time to bust up forced bundling.
 

The Gophers of the 50s may have had one game per year on TV. Yes, we are now spoiled. But that doesn't solve the problem. I may have to head to NM to see the damn thing in person
 

This game will most likely by online at new Mexico State website. BIG ten network don't broadcast this game period, Fox Sports net may, but i doubt it. B10, Gophers have no control what so ever on this game. NMSU has the control of this game they get to pick the TV coverage.
 

gophersfan said:
This game will most likely by online at new Mexico State website. BIG ten network don't broadcast this game period, Fox Sports net may, but i doubt it. B10, Gophers have no control what so ever on this game. NMSU has the control of this game they get to pick the TV coverage.
Click to expand...

It looks like I will have to listen to the game the same way I did in the 50's. They do still have radios now don't they? The biggest problem with this is that Ray Christensen or Halsey Hall won't be doing the broadcasts. I have lots of memories of raking leaves with my dad while listening to the game. The smell of burning leaves was also part of the experience. I suspect Dr.Don has similar memories but I doubt Parski does.
 


Killjoy said:
It looks like I will have to listen to the game the same way I did in the 50's. They do still have radios now don't they? The biggest problem with this is that Ray Christensen or Halsey Hall won't be doing the broadcasts. I have lots of memories of raking leaves with my dad while listening to the game. The smell of burning leaves was also part of the experience. I suspect Dr.Don has similar memories but I doubt Parski does.
Click to expand...

Yes I do, Killjoy. I also distinctly remember pheasant hunting with my dad on beautiful Saturday afternoons, and listening to those same announcers broadcasting Gopher Football. We'd road hunt during the Gopher games. Mom always packed lunch for us...sandwiches, small cans of pork and beans, big jug of water. We stopped to eat during the games. BTW, Dad always told us to eat everything, or Mom wouldn't send as much food with us next time if we brought any food home.
 

station19 said:
Precisely. I read an article a few months ago that said the average household pays $88 per month for cable or satellite service. They predicted that will rise to $125 per month by 2015.

Time to bust up forced bundling.
Click to expand...

I read recently that if ESPN watchers were forced to pay the a la carte costs to cover what everyone (watchers or not) do today in bundling it would be $35. Just for the ESPN channels. As much as I find the system to be frustrating given the lack of options (though I'm hoping Google, Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu can offer a decent alternative), the reality is that unbundling won't save us any money. And, families with a mix of TV preferences - sports for the dad, kid shows for the kids, dramas for the wife, and movie channels the family can enjoy - will all end up costing a lot more than the bundled price.
 

Thanks Dr.Don for sharing your story. I especially enjoyed this sentence "Dad always told us to eat everything, or Mom wouldn't send as much food with us next time if we brought any food home."
 

Halsey Hall said:
The Gophers of the 50s may have had one game per year on TV. Yes, we are now spoiled. But that doesn't solve the problem. I may have to head to NM to see the damn thing in person
Click to expand...

I guess I will NOT be going. Las Cruces doesn't even have an airport. You have to fly to El Paso.
 



As long as there is a stream available......I can live with it. Really doesn't matter how much it costs, I will pay. The real concern that I have is how the picture quality turns out. If it is slow and blocky, I will be upset.
 

stocker08 said:
As long as there is a stream available......I can live with it. Really doesn't matter how much it costs, I will pay. The real concern that I have is how the picture quality turns out. If it is slow and blocky, I will be upset.
Click to expand...
Stream it on an iPad and hook it up to the TV...I did that for the NCAA women's hockey championship...worked pretty well.
 

Halsey Hall said:
I guess I will NOT be going. Las Cruces doesn't even have an airport. You have to fly to El Paso.
Click to expand...

Is that because you hate El Paso, or do you think there should be an airport closer than 50 miles? Not trying to be a jerk, but El Paso is not that far away.
 

Killjoy said:
It looks like I will have to listen to the game the same way I did in the 50's. They do still have radios now don't they? The biggest problem with this is that Ray Christensen or Halsey Hall won't be doing the broadcasts. I have lots of memories of raking leaves with my dad while listening to the game. The smell of burning leaves was also part of the experience. I suspect Dr.Don has similar memories but I doubt Parski does.
Click to expand...

HEY - What about me.

I remember many Oct games listening to Ray and the Gophers on radio while duck and pheasant hunting.

Sept games were listening to the radio while on the golf course. There were always a couple of carts with those over-sized transistor radios.
 



station19 said:
HEY - What about me.

I remember many Oct games listening to Ray and the Gophers on radio while duck and pheasant hunting.

Sept games were listening to the radio while on the golf course. There were always a couple of carts with those over-sized transistor radios.
Click to expand...

I think Killjoy believes that you are not as old as he is or I am. Take that as a compliment, the young pups of today have no clue of what was. And the over-sized transistor radios were the top of the line. I remember going to Bible Camp, with a transistor radio. No one else brought a radio. I will give you one guess who the most popular Bible Camper was. :)
 

RailBaronYarr said:
I read recently that if ESPN watchers were forced to pay the a la carte costs to cover what everyone (watchers or not) do today in bundling it would be $35. Just for the ESPN channels. As much as I find the system to be frustrating given the lack of options (though I'm hoping Google, Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu can offer a decent alternative), the reality is that unbundling won't save us any money. And, families with a mix of TV preferences - sports for the dad, kid shows for the kids, dramas for the wife, and movie channels the family can enjoy - will all end up costing a lot more than the bundled price.
Click to expand...

'Unbundling' will not save us money if every network expects to take in the same amount of revenue. If people don't choose the network it will fall by the wayside......many useless networks will.

ESPN is around $5 per month right now. If two thirds drop it, they will need to charge $15 per month to maintain the same revenue.......doesn't mean they will get it. They will have to weigh what they charge and what expenses/costs they can still incur. A true supply and demand result could then take place.

If you elect to keep all the channels you presently have, yes it will cost you more-possibly quit a bit. I would think most cable/sat subscribers would drop at least 75% of their present channels

You also have a situation where the market is extremely dominated by Dish, DirectTv and a singe cable company per city. I expect Uncle Sherman to eventually stick his nose in. Oligopoly anyone?
 

Mr. 19, (I caught your comment to Mr. P1) we need beej and his cronies to get into this conversation soon.
 

Dr.Don said:
I think Killjoy believes that you are not as old as he is or I am. Take that as a compliment, the young pups of today have no clue of what was. And the over-sized transistor radios were the top of the line. I remember going to Bible Camp, with a transistor radio. No one else brought a radio. I will give you one guess who the most popular Bible Camper was. :)
Click to expand...

The good looking chick that still drew more attention than your radio that only got KFGO?
 

station19 said:
The good looking chick that still drew more attention than your radio that only got KFGO?
Click to expand...

Wrong...back in those days in SE MN where I grew up, it was WeeGee. (WDGY)

At night it was KOMA (Oklahoma City) and/or WLS (Chicago)

We used to sneak out of our cabins after curfew and sit in front of the whatever, and "meet" each other. The counselors were always too busy to bother us.
 

Dr.Don said:
Wrong...back in those days in SE MN where I grew up, it was WeeGee. (WDGY)

At night it was KOMA (Oklahoma City) and/or WLS (Chicago)

We used to sneak out of our cabins after curfew and sit in front of the whatever, and "meet" each other. The counselors were always too busy to bother us.
Click to expand...

KDWB 63 here in the lakes area.

WLS 890 at night......what does WLS stand for?
 


Halsey Hall said:
I guess I will NOT be going. Las Cruces doesn't even have an airport. You have to fly to El Paso.
Click to expand...

Unregistered User said:
Is that because you hate El Paso, or do you think there should be an airport closer than 50 miles? Not trying to be a jerk, but El Paso is not that far away.
Click to expand...

The distance from El Paso airport to NMSU Aggie Stadium is the same distance from MSP to North Branch or Faribault
 

Dr.Don

Dr.Don said:
I think Killjoy believes that you are not as old as he is or I am. Take that as a compliment, the young pups of today have no clue of what was. And the over-sized transistor radios were the top of the line. I remember going to Bible Camp, with a transistor radio. No one else brought a radio. I will give you one guess who the most popular Bible Camper was. :)
Click to expand...

Actually I was going to include him in the post. I got the distinct impression he was about our age but I decided not to include him in the post because he seemed so hurt by some of Parski's station14 comments. I wasn't sure if was a number thing (age?) that bothered him but out of respect for Big Ole I decided error on the side of caution.:D
 

I will email AXS TV to see if Mr. Cuban and gang can be heroes again.
 

station19 said:
KDWB 63 here in the lakes area.

WLS 890 at night......what does WLS stand for?
Click to expand...

Mr.19, the call letters of WLS came from their original station out of Chicago, from I believe was the Sears Building called World's Largest Store.
 

station19 said:
'Unbundling' will not save us money if every network expects to take in the same amount of revenue. If people don't choose the network it will fall by the wayside......many useless networks will.

ESPN is around $5 per month right now. If two thirds drop it, they will need to charge $15 per month to maintain the same revenue.......doesn't mean they will get it. They will have to weigh what they charge and what expenses/costs they can still incur. A true supply and demand result could then take place.

If you elect to keep all the channels you presently have, yes it will cost you more-possibly quit a bit. I would think most cable/sat subscribers would drop at least 75% of their present channels

You also have a situation where the market is extremely dominated by Dish, DirectTv and a singe cable company per city. I expect Uncle Sherman to eventually stick his nose in. Oligopoly anyone?
Click to expand...

Many argue that it's the program/product providers that are causing the raise in rates not the distributors like Satellite/Cable companies themselves that are the cause. When ESPN/BTN/Local Station owners demand increases for their product all the phone calls/e-mails screaming to keep them or keep the prices down go to the cable companies, never to the source demanding the increase. Charlie Ergen from Dish for instance has been a very vocal voice demanding unbundling for years. He's lobbied for a la carte programing too.

Not going to speak from RBY but he probably read articles similar to this one from Bloomberg. It's that the loss of advertising/subscribers from some of the bundled channels would lead to the desired channels (ESPN/BTN/Disney) to raise what they charge.

I Don't have any opinion either way - but they sure did.

In other words, you’re only partially right to blame your cable company for why you’re shelling out big bucks each year. You also have to look further downstream at the content companies or programmers who are charging the cable operators — News Corp., Disney, CBS, etc.
Now, even cable operators are becoming content companies. Time Warner Cable just agreed to buy the right to carry LA Dodgers games through a new regional sports network. Last year, the company debuted another regional sports network that carries LA Lakers games. Comcast and DirecTV also own sports networks. Plus, Comcast owns 51 percent of NBC Universal, one of the largest programmers...

Disney, which owns ESPN, makes almost $6 per month for every single basic cable customer. You don’t watch ESPN? Too bad. You’re paying $6 a month for it.
If you could suddenly just pay for only the channels you want to watch, let’s say 50 percent of you would pay for ESPN. That’s probably too high, but let’s run with that.
Disney would immediately have to charge $12 a month for ESPN to make up for the lost revenue. They’ve just lost half their viewers. Plus, ESPN makes money from all of the other networks they make cable providers buy to get access to ESPN — like ESPN2, ESPN Classic, etc. That’s another few bucks per month.
And then there’s advertising revenue — in an a la carte world with half the audience, ad rates just dropped, big time, on ESPN. And then there’s the lost advertising on the other networks, such as ESPN2 and ESPN Classic.
Now Disney is charging, say, $25 a month just for ESPN to make up for the lost revenue. Just one channel. And chances are you probably want at least a few more — MTV, Comedy Central, AMC, TNT, whatever. Those may not cost you $25 each but the same math applies. They’re going to cost more than you think.
Dish CEO Joseph Clayton says he knows there’s an audience of 18- to 28-year-olds that just wants to pay $20 a month for video — preferably streamed online. But Dish has struggled to figure out a way of giving consumers the content they actually want for that price, because programmers aren’t exactly handing it over at low cost. Clayton once told me he could put up a channel of the moon for very low cost — but that doesn’t mean people would actually watch.
This isn’t to say that the current system is always here to stay. What’s likely to happen is that cable operators will begin to offer you smaller, more personalized packages of channels. In other words, you may still have to pay for ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPN8 The “Ocho“ if you’re a sports fan — but you may not have to pay for three cooking channels in addition if watching food isn’t your thing.

The cost will be lower and you’ll get more channels you actually watch. So stop focusing on a la carte, and refocus your attention to mini-packages, because that’s what is far more likely to occur.

http://go.bloomberg.com/tech-blog/2...going-up-again-but-forget-a-la-carte-pricing/
 

Ice

the whole point comes down to let the paying customer decide.

ESPN can raise their prices all they want but the customers will decide how much they are willing to pay.

The average expanded basic package is probably what, 150 channels? I've never seen a study but I would bet the average cable/satellite user watches no more than 10-20 channels.

APL... animal planet get .07 per month from all xpand subscribers. X 100 million subscribers X 12 monthes = 84 million per yr. Without them being forced upon people they would be gone.

Don't watch APL, drop cable, get lucky.
 

All the complaining about this game possibly not being televised is humorous. There is no Big Ten Network where I live, so I don't get to see most games that I'm not attending. It's not the end of the world (though Las Cruces might be).

That said, I'm making this trip. Flights to El Paso are surprisingly expensive, but Albuquerque is quite cheap ($208 round trip for me). It's a three-hour drive each way to Las Cruces, but it will give me a chance to check out a part of the country which I've never really explored.
 

Get a radio (or a stream over your mobile device), put on some headphones, and go for a nice walk while listening to the game. That is what I'm planning to do.
 


Jike, here is the difference on how I see it

Jike Spingleton said:
All the complaining about this game possibly not being televised is humorous. There is no Big Ten Network where I live, so I don't get to see most games that I'm not attending. It's not the end of the world (though Las Cruces might be).

That said, I'm making this trip. Flights to El Paso are surprisingly expensive, but Albuquerque is quite cheap ($208 round trip for me). It's a three-hour drive each way to Las Cruces, but it will give me a chance to check out a part of the country which I've never really explored.
Click to expand...

Let's say you are a die-hard football fan of a Big 10 team but you live squarely in SEC country. You may not be able to get the Big 10 network in your own home or apartment due to cable contractual obligations so you deem yourself out of luck. However, the Big 10 network can be picked via satellite at most any sports bar that actually claims they are an actual sports bar. Most sports bars have satellite dish connections (DirecTV or Dish) and simply need to subscribe to sports packages to keep their patrons happy. You can always, if the game is shown via Big Ten network, watch it at a worthy sports bar. I'm not even going into the myriad of ways you can watch Big 10 games online with Big Ten 2 Go.

This game in Las Cruces potentially will be seen by NOBODY. You've paid your dues 10x over as a Gopher football fan. You deserve to watch each and every game either in person on TV in this day and age. I find it hard to believe and enterprising individual like yourself doesn't find some way to watch a Gopher football game when not attending in person, regardless where in the world you are. Unless you are a contestant on Naked and Afraid and stranded in the Louisiana bayou, then you have a valid excuse.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom