BrandDunk does not claim credit for any images featured unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyright to its respectful owners. In no way is BrandDunk responsible for the content on any external links. Information here may contain errors or inaccuracies; we do not make any warranties to the reliability of the site's content. If you own the rights to any of the images and do not wish them to appear here, please contact us for prompt removal.
The Sports Business Journal and Sports Business Daily have published their list of the top 25 football announcers for 2009. The list includes football commentators from both college football and the NFL. Twelve panelists from the SBJ & SBD rated the announcers to produce the rankings.
Top 25 Best Football Annoucers for 2009:
1. Gary Danielson – CBS
2. Cris Collinsworth – NBC
3. Al Michaels – NBC
4. Phil Simms – CBS
5. Kirk Herbstreit – ABC/ESPN
6. Troy Aikman – Fox
7. Ron Franklin – ABC/ESPN
8. Verne Lundquist – CBS
9. Joe Buck – Fox
10. Jim Nantz – CBS
11. Mike Tirico – ESPN
12. Brad Nessler – ABC/ESPN
13. Brent Musburger – ABC/ESPN
14. Jon Gruden – ESPN
15. Daryl Johnston – Fox
16. Ron Jaworski – ESPN
17. Greg Gumbel – CBS
18. Sean McDonough – ABC/ESPN
19. Todd Blackledge – ABC/ESPN
20. Dan Fouts – CBS
21. Bob Papa – NFL Network
22. Mike Patrick – ABC/ESPN
23. Chris Fowler – ESPN
24. Gus Johnson – CBS
25. Dick Enberg – CBS
Here are the guys that are rated too high:
* Buck – He’s in the top 10 based on his baseball rep. He’s solidly average in football.
* Gruden – It would be “outstanding” if he could expand his vocabulary.
* Gumbel – Living off his brother’s rep. He’s okay, but not top shelf.
* Fouts – Top 20, really? Proves no one is watching those AFC West games on CBS.
* Papa – Who gets to see him broadcast? Time Warner still doesn’t offer NFL Network.
* Enberg – Great career, but listing him is more of a ‘lifetime achievement award’.
Here are the guys that need to be rated higher on the list:
* Franklin – Could easily be the top college football guy on list.
* Musburger – Polarizing figure, but he’s great for the game. Getting old, but still comedic gold.
* McDonough – Always solid, would be rated higher if he were more of a “name”.
* Johnson – The panelists not only rate him too low they slight him with “Youtube generation” comment.
Here are some key names that did not make the list:
* Erin Andrews – ESPN (Put a lady on the list)
* Bob Davie – ESPN
* Dan Dierdorf – CBS
* Ian Eagle – CBS
* Bob Griese – ESPN
* Kevin Harlan – CBS (Should make top 25 in future)
* Craig James – ESPN
* Andrea Kremer – NBC
* Jesse Palmer – ESPN (Should be in top 25 in future)
* Tony Siragusa – Fox
* Dick Stockton – Fox
PS – Could some production assistant at ABC/ESPN do Mike Patrick a favor and get him a better photo?
I don’t usually promote on behalf of the Worldwide Leader (mostly because they don’t need me to) but I think their new “30 for 30″ series is worth watching. And not just because Bill Simmons (aka: the Sports Guy) was responsible for getting the series made. ESPN launched this new series of sports stories that detail important sports moments over the past 30 years. The concept was to select a subject that was well known, but then tell the unknown story behind that topic. Each of the documentaries will be directed by feature films director.
I watched the first one this week called King’s Ransom which was directed by Peter Berg. Kings Ransom was the story of the trade that sent Wayne Gretzky from Edmonton to Los Angeles. Director Peter Berg really got into the behind the scenes dealings and emotions that helped to pull off the deal. He also focused on the pain, anger, anguish that Edmonton fans felt after their star player was traded. He exposed the role that Gretzky played in making the deal happen. He even wrapped it up neatly in the end with most agreeing it was a trade that had to be made. Even thought the deal hurt the Edmonton Oilers and their faithful, it was still a trade that had to happen.
The ratings on this first installment were not stellar, but I think it’s a series that is worth watching. As sports fans we often only hear the big stories in the media. This program, modeled after HBO Real Sports, tells the less known story. That’s personally something that I love. Here are a few of the future episodes that I’m looking forward to watching:
* Small Potatoes: Who Killed the USFL – airs October 20th
* Muhammad and Larry – Oct 27
* The Legend of Jimmy the Greek – Nov 10
* No Crossover: The Trial of Allen Iverson – 2010
* Jordan Rides the Bus – 2010
* June 17, 1994 (story of OJ Simpson’s run from police in white Bronco) – 2010
* Steve Bartman: Catching Hell – 2010
* One Night in Vegas – 2010
* The Best That Never Was – 2010
Complete list here at ESPN’s 30 for 30 website.
My only complaint about the series is that they are going to make me wait 9 months to see all of these great features.
Who is the top sports media site on the web today? Yahoo Sports according to ComScore ratings (August 2009) of the top sports sites on the web. Although a large portion of that traffic is due to Rivals.com which accounts for almost 1/3 of Yahoo Sports 29 million number. So Yahoo seems to be getting some value from the $100 million they spent to buy the Nashville company in 2007. Rivals has a strong network of college fan communities, although it could be weakening since the top Rivals brass has now exited stage left. But for now Yahoo is on top of one key internet category, who are the other top sports sites?
Top 10 Sports Media Sites (August 2009)
1. Yahoo Sports (includes Rivals.com)
2. ESPN
3. NFL Internet Group (includes all team sites)
4. Fox Sports (includes Scout.com)
5. MLB.com (which counts traffic from all team sites)
6. Fantasy Sports Ventures
7. CBS Sportsline
8. Fanhouse
9. Sports Illustrated sites (includes FanNation)
10. Stack Media
Honorable Mention: NBC Sports (includes Pro Football Talk)
The game between the Ohio State Buckeyes and USC Trojans on Saturday, September 12th, 2009 was the most watched college football matchup in the history of ESPN. ESPN reports that over 10.6 million people watched USC defeat Ohio State in a thrilling game in Columbus, Ohio.
The USC/Ohio State game was the highest rated cable broadcast since Florida State played Miami in 1994. The highest rated regular season game in 2008 was the Texas Longhorns versus Texas Tech Red Raiders, which tallied a 7.5 rating and had over 8.5 million households watching. USC versus Ohio State, in Los Angeles, was the 2nd highest rated regular season game in ’08, which over 7.8 million viewers.
The NFL has the largest television contract among the four major U.S. professional sports leagues. In-fact the paid media rights to the National Football League are surely the largest in the World, along with the Olympics and Premier League. So there are a lot of dollars at stake for the NFL, which means they are extremely vigilant about how their product is distributed. You’ve probably heard their “This broadcast cannot be redistributed without the express written permission of the NFL…” warning at the beginning of football games so often that you hardly notice it anymore. But that pre-game warning is just part of the NFL’s strategy to protect their marks.
Now the NFL is expanding their protection to include a ban against social media. The NFL is restricting players, coaches, league personnel or media from engage in social networking during games. The purpose is to prevent a media member from twittering the activity on the field, which would be a form of redistribution that potential violates their television rights deal. As if a reporter in Cleveland posting something on his Facebook page is going to ruin the entire Browns/Steelers broadcast for CBS.
I mean come on, isn’t this taking things a little too far? I personally think it would be a more enjoyable experience if while watching the game on TV (on an NFL sponsor network) I was also able to read Peter King or Chad Ochocinco’s thoughts on the game. Maybe Chris Cooley or his wife would post some scoop from the locker room that would totally enhance the game watching experience. But that is exactly what the NFL does not want.
The NFL does not want some practice squad player posting from the New England Patriots locker room that Tom Brady was injured during a meaningless preseason game with the Washington Redskins. They want to control the message and feel that’s the only way to protect the integrity of the game and their (high paying) media partners. Which is dead wrong in my opinion.
The world today is too wired to try to control the message all the time. Twitter, Facebook, etc. are meant to be means of distributing information to the masses. The internet is the great equalizer in that it makes it easy to quickly spread information. True, often that information might not be correct. But to try to control that message to inhibit people from sharing their thoughts, ideas or opinions isn’t going to work. It’s like trying hold a gallon of sand in your hand; it’ll first start to slip through your fingers and then eventually come pouring out. The NFL would be better served to realize this now and refrain from trying to restrict entirely the information, but perhaps rather limit the information (e.g.- no distribution of injury related information). They’d stand a much better chance of achieving their objective if they started with a reasonable goal.
I personally cannot wait until Ochocinco twitter’s after his first touchdown of the season. It’ll be great to see how the league tries to penalize him.
How valuable is a television commercial during the Super Bowl? Apparently a lot less in the current economy.
CBS is reportedly selling spots for the 2010 Super Bowl in the $2-3 million dollar (per spot) range. That amount is down considerably from the $2.4 million to $3 million per spot that NBC received on the 2009 Super Bowl. CBS is selling cheaper because they have to given the current economy. They are also telling potential buyers that they are negotiable on the price, something that NBC was (publicly) inflexible last year until the economy tanked.
Smart move by CBS to get aggressive on working with advertisers to get them involved in the big game. There are lots of marquee brands that love to get the exposure the Super Bowl audience provides, but many of those have seen their ad budgets slashed. By working with the potential advertiser to create a program, CBS is going to salvage some deals that might have otherwise walked away. CBS will probably also benefit from hooking some of these advertisers into packages that include online, radio and other CBS-owned media properties.
I like this move, but if CBS really wanted to make a bold move they would publish the spot schedule with prices. Imagine if they had a link from their website that showed all of the available commercial inventory during the broadcast. The link would include all of the spots in order, which each spot having a price tag next to it. If an advertiser has committed to the spot, then their name would be included (without revealing the price they paid).
I think this would be successful because it would create a buzz around advertisers to lock down the prime spots (which sell at higher prices). It could also land some new deals from companies who might see a competitor listed and make the bold decision to buy a spot. Imagine Heineken deciding to buy a spot immediately after (or before) a Budweiser or Miller spot. Putting the information out there publicly might alienate some brands, but could get other new advertisers to step up to the table. Because rather than negotiating the deals in backrooms, where favoritism rules the day, it would bring all dealings into the public domain. Except of course the final agreed upon price should not be disclosed.
I even think CBS could take this strategy one step further by allowing Google & Microsoft (and other large online ad divisions) to each sell spots on their own sites, to earn a commission on the sale. Maybe a Super Bowl commercial could even be auctioned off by Ebay (with a reserve price, of course). The buzz alone generated by these moves would help to drive some sales and could even create a new online media property for CBS to sell ads for (i.e.- their web site listing all of the ads for sale on the Super Bowl).
This type of economy is when companies need to be most courageous. CBS would be taking a big risk, but could also permanently change the way Super Bowl spots (and maybe others) are sold. The change could have a positive financial impact now and down the road. And before you remind me of the financial troubles of SpotRunner, I’ll say I think CBS has a few more resources than a 3rd-party site that is selling remnant commercial inventory.
If you added up the entire population of the countries that make up North & South America, they still would not equal the number of people that watched the Opening Ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The Times of London is reporting that nearly 1 billion people (984 million) tuned in to watch all or part of the kickoff event from the Summer Games in China. And the report from Futures Sport + Entertainment does not account for people that watched in public places, which easily pushes the number over a billion.
That makes the Beijing Olympic Games Opening Ceremonies the most watched live event in the history of television. More people tuned in to the Birds Nest (venue that housed the event) than had ever watched a Super Bowl, World Cup Final or other sporting event in the past. The billion viewers number also greatly surpasses the largest non-live television audience, which was approximately 100 million viewers for the final episode of M*A*S*H in 1983.
The folks at NBC must be pretty excited to be a big part of that historic event. Even with technology enabling more of the World to have access to television, it is hard to imagine any upcoming event surpassing this record. At least until 2012 rolls around and we have the Opening Ceremonies for the London Games.
Many of the people who watch the Super Bowl are just watching to see the commercials. With an audience of over 90 million viewers, the Super Bowl commercials have taken on a life of their own that is separate from the game. We hear about their cost, content and controversies leading up to the game. Then share our opinions on them, re-watch them and even rate them after the Super Bowl is over. There are even websites that are solely devoted to the commercials aired during the Super Bowl. So the corporations that advertise during the Super Bowl get a lot of bang for their (considerable) buck.
Yet as big as Super Bowl commercials have become, they are still only played during the regularly scheduled breaks in the game. Yes, a few of those breaks might be stretched longer to accommodate a little extra revenue. And yes televised sports have introduced the concept of the TV timeout, which was not part of our vocabulary a couple of decades ago. But those commercial breaks have generally been incorporate in to the lulls in the game (e.g.- after kick offs or turnovers). We’ve rarely seen a situation in sports when a game was intentionally stopped in order to air commercials, until now…
The Indian Premier League of cricket is going to add in “compulsory time outs” during their tournament in South Africa. This is the first time the IPL has used time outs in their games; he sole purpose in using them is “an attempt to squeeze in more television advertising“. SportBusiness says the IPL plans to market them as “tactical timeouts” which will each last 7:30 minutes. The TV audience will watch three long commercials (2:30 minutes each) during each break; the commercials will cost approximately $1 million a piece.
A senior official said the decision to stop the normal flow of the game to add commercials was, “driven completely…by commercial objectives…to make even more money”. The same official went on to say that the television commercials are not a benefit to the game being played and would not add any value.
So is this the way we’re headed now in sports? We need more money, so we stop the games in order to show television commercials. It’s a concept we’re probably pretty used to in America, as our games have been chopped up by commercial breaks for years. But how will it be received around the rest of the globe? Imagine the howls of protest if any of Europe’s major soccer leagues ever decided to add in commercials during the action on the field. Sure it’s nearly impossible to imagine that today, but there might come a day soon when it happens. I’m sure the fans of cricket would tell you they never expected to see breaks artificially inserted in to their sport, and now it’s a reality.
I spent Masters Sunday splitting time between entertaining my 8-month old daughter and watching the final round of The Masters. The final round was an enjoyable one, although I felt the CBS duo of Jim Nantz and Nick Faldo overplayed the greatness of it a bit. Maybe it was because I was only casually watching since I was babysitting my little girl, but this round wasn’t nearly as exciting as other rounds of golf that I’ve watched. The best round of golf that I’ve seen was the Sunday round at the 1999 Ryder Cup at Brookline, when the USA overcame a huge deficit to win.
What was amazing to me about the Sunday round of the 2009 Masters was the randomness of the finish. Most of the day was devoted to the epic battle between Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. The eventual playoff participants (Angel Cabrera, Chad Campbell & Kenny Perry) were relegated to a supporting role while Tiger & Phil were on the course. Once it was obvious that Tiger & Phil were going to fall just short, the storyline turned to Perry. Nantz waxed poetic about how Perry could become the oldest winner in the history of the Masters. Then Perry bogeyed the final hole in regulation sending the 2009 Masters into a 3-way playoff. It is then that the drama really unfolded…
On the first playoff hole Campbell and Perry drove their shots into the middle of the fairway, while Cabrera’s shot was blocked out in the trees to the right. Naturally you assume that Cabrera’s goose is cooked; it appeared he didn’t even have a shot at the green. And then it happened. Then we witnessed one of the luckiest moments in the history of the Masters. Cabrera’s hail mary shot at the green hit a tree and ricocheted out into the 18th fairway. When I heard the sound of his ball hitting a tree I all but buried Cabrera in my mind. I had already pretty much written him off with the other two guys in perfect shape in the fairway, but now I was sure he was done. Until the CBS camera located his shot in the middle of the fairway, then I thought to myself that maybe El Pato has a chance.
Turns out that Angel Cabrera wasn’t dead; as he tapped in a putt a short time later to win the 2nd playoff hole and the 2009 Masters. What an amazing turn events, Cabrera went from dead & buried to Masters champion. I play golf and I’ve struck many trees during my day, so I know that you can catch lucky breaks. I also know that luck plays a little part in most sports championships. But what are the odds a guy is going to win the Masters shortly after knocking one off a Georgia Pine?
How random was it that Cabrera’s ball wound up in better position then if he would have just punched out to begin with? It just goes to show that sports are random. Cabrera was in terrible shape compared to his opponents, but with one random twist of fate he was still in it. Yes, it required skill on Angel’s part to get up & down and not choke on the next playoff hole. But if Cabrera hits that shot off the tree ten more times, I bet none of them turn out as good as his one shot did on Sunday. It was a random occurrence that helped Angel Cabrera win the Masters. In my opinion it is “the story” of Sunday at Augusta for the 2009 Masters.
Congrats to Angel “El Pato” Cabrera. He is a great golfer, who is quite deserving of his Masters championship. But he needs to go back to Augusta National today and kiss that tree that saved his round. Like the Eisenhower Tree, we may soon see another tree at Augusta get named for the man who famously struck it. I just have to figure out what sounds better: Angel’s Tree, Cabrera’s Tree or El Pato’s Pine?
