Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="UcMiami, post: 2440460, member: 199"] Just a bit of a follow-up to my previous post: 1. Production costs to locate cameras and broadcast equipment, crew, and on air talent, house and feed them and market to advertisers is a pretty big expense. No idea of what the bottom line number is, but it is definitely not peanuts. And advertisers are not exactly competing for minutes on most WCBB broadcasts. There is a reason why the power 5 in house networks are not setting up shop at all their WCBB games - Big10, Pac10, SEC networks are doing much better than they used to, but it isn't complete and they are definitely not sending out traveling crews to follow even their marquee teams. (We are not talking about the sort of video streaming provided at HS tournaments and for Uconn exhibition games which is generally only worthy of low quality computer streaming.) 2. ESPN 'owns the rights' to 1000s of sporting events that they do not bother to cover - their expenses would not cover the projected revenues from broadcasting them. If they can find someone else to create the production for any of those events, they are very willing to cede their rights in return for access to the product for their own platforms. 3. I suspect the FloHoops was unwilling to cede streaming or broadcast rights to their own production without compensation as they made a little money I am sure from their own streaming service subscriptions. And ESPN with other broadcast product already available during that time period wasn't going to spend the money. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach