<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Paying for Sports Programming</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thesportseconomist.com/2013/01/19/paying-for-sports-programming/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thesportseconomist.com/2013/01/19/paying-for-sports-programming/</link>
	<description>__economic thinking about sports__</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 23:47:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skip Sauer</title>
		<link>http://thesportseconomist.com/2013/01/19/paying-for-sports-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-3483</link>
		<dc:creator>Skip Sauer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:08:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesportseconomist.com/?p=4417#comment-3483</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You state &#039;Sports and &quot;reality&quot; programming drive live television.&#039;  Ok then.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You state &#8216;Sports and &#8220;reality&#8221; programming drive live television.&#8217;  Ok then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rocky</title>
		<link>http://thesportseconomist.com/2013/01/19/paying-for-sports-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-3478</link>
		<dc:creator>Rocky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesportseconomist.com/?p=4417#comment-3478</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sports and &quot;reality&quot; television drive live viewing. 

Here is a more representative week, easily available through the Internet, that contains both sports and regular, non-rerun programming.

1	FOX NFC PLAYOFF-SAT-01/12	S	FOX	11.1	14037
2	Big Bang Theory, THE-01/10		CBS	6.4	8147
3	GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS-01/13	S	NBC	6.4	8058
4	Modern Family-01/09		ABC	4.7	5989
5	Two and a Half Men-01/10		CBS	4.2	5278
6	NCIS-01/08		CBS	3.5	4452
7	60 Minutes-01/13		CBS	3.3	4184
8	Person Of Interest-01/10		CBS	3.3	4124
9	Grey&#039;S ANATOMY-01/10		ABC	3.2	4001
10	Family Guy-01/13		FOX	3.2	3996
11	AFC DIV-PLF-POST-GAME-SA-01/12	S	CBS	3.1	3877
12	NCIS: LOS ANGELES-01/08		CBS	3.0	3816
13	Once Upon A Time-01/13		ABC	2.8	3582
14	Scandal-01/10		ABC	2.8	3525
15	PEOPLE&#039;S CHOICE AWARDS-01/09	S	CBS	2.7	3379
16	Suburgatory-01/09		ABC	2.6	3327
17	American Dad-01/13		FOX	2.4	3093
18	ELEMENTARY-01/10		CBS	2.4	3072
19	MIDDLE, THE-01/09		ABC	2.4	3061
20	Simpsons-01/13		FOX	2.4	3045
21	Biggest Loser 14-01/07	P	NBC	2.4	3043
22	BOB&#039;S BURGERS-01/13		FOX	2.3	2939
23	BACHELOR, THE-01/07	P	ABC	2.3	2903
24	OFFICE-01/10		NBC	2.2	2772
25	Chicago Fire-01/09		NBC	2.2	2757

If you claim to be a scholar, you should validate your data and not be satisfied with one week that &quot;proves&quot; your point.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sports and &#8220;reality&#8221; television drive live viewing. </p>
<p>Here is a more representative week, easily available through the Internet, that contains both sports and regular, non-rerun programming.</p>
<p>1	FOX NFC PLAYOFF-SAT-01/12	S	FOX	11.1	14037<br />
2	Big Bang Theory, THE-01/10		CBS	6.4	8147<br />
3	GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS-01/13	S	NBC	6.4	8058<br />
4	Modern Family-01/09		ABC	4.7	5989<br />
5	Two and a Half Men-01/10		CBS	4.2	5278<br />
6	NCIS-01/08		CBS	3.5	4452<br />
7	60 Minutes-01/13		CBS	3.3	4184<br />
8	Person Of Interest-01/10		CBS	3.3	4124<br />
9	Grey&#8217;S ANATOMY-01/10		ABC	3.2	4001<br />
10	Family Guy-01/13		FOX	3.2	3996<br />
11	AFC DIV-PLF-POST-GAME-SA-01/12	S	CBS	3.1	3877<br />
12	NCIS: LOS ANGELES-01/08		CBS	3.0	3816<br />
13	Once Upon A Time-01/13		ABC	2.8	3582<br />
14	Scandal-01/10		ABC	2.8	3525<br />
15	PEOPLE&#8217;S CHOICE AWARDS-01/09	S	CBS	2.7	3379<br />
16	Suburgatory-01/09		ABC	2.6	3327<br />
17	American Dad-01/13		FOX	2.4	3093<br />
18	ELEMENTARY-01/10		CBS	2.4	3072<br />
19	MIDDLE, THE-01/09		ABC	2.4	3061<br />
20	Simpsons-01/13		FOX	2.4	3045<br />
21	Biggest Loser 14-01/07	P	NBC	2.4	3043<br />
22	BOB&#8217;S BURGERS-01/13		FOX	2.3	2939<br />
23	BACHELOR, THE-01/07	P	ABC	2.3	2903<br />
24	OFFICE-01/10		NBC	2.2	2772<br />
25	Chicago Fire-01/09		NBC	2.2	2757</p>
<p>If you claim to be a scholar, you should validate your data and not be satisfied with one week that &#8220;proves&#8221; your point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skip Sauer</title>
		<link>http://thesportseconomist.com/2013/01/19/paying-for-sports-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-3444</link>
		<dc:creator>Skip Sauer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:02:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesportseconomist.com/?p=4417#comment-3444</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rocky,

If you don&#039;t trust the integrity of my posts, I suggest you visit other sites.

The data printed here were the data accessible on the Nielsen page on the day I read Alex Tabarrok&#039;s post.  I didn&#039;t &quot;pick a week.&quot;  (And obviously, next week there will be few if any football telecasts on the top ten lists.  But that doesn&#039;t negate the observation that sports are driving live television these days).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rocky,</p>
<p>If you don&#8217;t trust the integrity of my posts, I suggest you visit other sites.</p>
<p>The data printed here were the data accessible on the Nielsen page on the day I read Alex Tabarrok&#8217;s post.  I didn&#8217;t &#8220;pick a week.&#8221;  (And obviously, next week there will be few if any football telecasts on the top ten lists.  But that doesn&#8217;t negate the observation that sports are driving live television these days).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rocky</title>
		<link>http://thesportseconomist.com/2013/01/19/paying-for-sports-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-3433</link>
		<dc:creator>Rocky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesportseconomist.com/?p=4417#comment-3433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You do know that you picked a week with all reruns in the regular programming slots, right? This would depress ratings for other shows and make football look better by comparison. 

Odd that you&#039;d pick a week that best shows sports when more recent data are available.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You do know that you picked a week with all reruns in the regular programming slots, right? This would depress ratings for other shows and make football look better by comparison. </p>
<p>Odd that you&#8217;d pick a week that best shows sports when more recent data are available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shizzmoney</title>
		<link>http://thesportseconomist.com/2013/01/19/paying-for-sports-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-3432</link>
		<dc:creator>Shizzmoney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesportseconomist.com/?p=4417#comment-3432</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Trying to cut cable costs, but need to watch sports?  Just do what I do:

- Get baller internet speed (around $50-$80/mth)

- Get an XBOX (it has ESPN now)

- Stream third party sites for games]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trying to cut cable costs, but need to watch sports?  Just do what I do:</p>
<p>- Get baller internet speed (around $50-$80/mth)</p>
<p>- Get an XBOX (it has ESPN now)</p>
<p>- Stream third party sites for games</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gork platter</title>
		<link>http://thesportseconomist.com/2013/01/19/paying-for-sports-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-3429</link>
		<dc:creator>gork platter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:45:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesportseconomist.com/?p=4417#comment-3429</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;We find consumers opting for, rather than out of bundles when given the choice.&quot;

I disagree; that quote looks more like the head of an industry group trying to paint a dismal picture in bright hues.  About one-third of US households are without landlines, and there is a continuing trend for people to cut their cable TV too; about a million a year, on average, for the last few years, now.

I love live-televised football, but I&#039;m not going to pay the outrageous prices for cable.   I think most people would agree with me.  Let&#039;s look at that Nielsen chart closely.

Those sports shows were available over-the-air (OTA) on network television, not solely on cable.   During that week, there were 14 bowl games.  Not a single one of them came close to cracking the top 10 of the network broadcasts that included non-sports shows.

People who watch Top Chef (but not sports programming) are, in an insidious way, subsidizing ESPN&#039;s (Disney&#039;s) ability to overpay for sports programming that, on a per-viewer basis, is vastly higher than any other programming.  They are not subsidizing sports viewing directly, but they&#039;re subsidizing ESPN&#039;s ability to steal the market of sports programming from the networks.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;We find consumers opting for, rather than out of bundles when given the choice.&#8221;</p>
<p>I disagree; that quote looks more like the head of an industry group trying to paint a dismal picture in bright hues.  About one-third of US households are without landlines, and there is a continuing trend for people to cut their cable TV too; about a million a year, on average, for the last few years, now.</p>
<p>I love live-televised football, but I&#8217;m not going to pay the outrageous prices for cable.   I think most people would agree with me.  Let&#8217;s look at that Nielsen chart closely.</p>
<p>Those sports shows were available over-the-air (OTA) on network television, not solely on cable.   During that week, there were 14 bowl games.  Not a single one of them came close to cracking the top 10 of the network broadcasts that included non-sports shows.</p>
<p>People who watch Top Chef (but not sports programming) are, in an insidious way, subsidizing ESPN&#8217;s (Disney&#8217;s) ability to overpay for sports programming that, on a per-viewer basis, is vastly higher than any other programming.  They are not subsidizing sports viewing directly, but they&#8217;re subsidizing ESPN&#8217;s ability to steal the market of sports programming from the networks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fonzy Shazam</title>
		<link>http://thesportseconomist.com/2013/01/19/paying-for-sports-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-3415</link>
		<dc:creator>Fonzy Shazam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 03:12:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesportseconomist.com/?p=4417#comment-3415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;It is possible that continued increases in the value of sports programming among aficionados would shift some sports packages out of the basic tier bundle, for the same reason that caviar is never offered as a free topping on a hamburger.  Non-sports viewers would then have no complaint.   At that point the howling would come from fans unwilling to pay the market price for sports.&quot;

To some extent I believe this has already happened. In the sense that the availability of NFL football and college football broadcast outstrips the broadcasting on basic tiers this seems to be true. The NFL Ticket and the various college packages put many broadcasts out of reach for many marginal fans.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It is possible that continued increases in the value of sports programming among aficionados would shift some sports packages out of the basic tier bundle, for the same reason that caviar is never offered as a free topping on a hamburger.  Non-sports viewers would then have no complaint.   At that point the howling would come from fans unwilling to pay the market price for sports.&#8221;</p>
<p>To some extent I believe this has already happened. In the sense that the availability of NFL football and college football broadcast outstrips the broadcasting on basic tiers this seems to be true. The NFL Ticket and the various college packages put many broadcasts out of reach for many marginal fans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://thesportseconomist.com/2013/01/19/paying-for-sports-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-3409</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesportseconomist.com/?p=4417#comment-3409</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting piece on a very misunderstood topic.  Hazlett&#039;s article on bundling should be required reading in applied micro or public policy courses.  As a related point, Southwestern Bell gained a huge advantage over ATT by bundling minutes into a monthly package rather than using the long established (and seemingly consumer friendly), pay per minute approach.  Besides cost differences of bundling, the pricing mechanism becomes an attribute of the product itself that consumers may value for their own transactions costs (convenience) purposes]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting piece on a very misunderstood topic.  Hazlett&#8217;s article on bundling should be required reading in applied micro or public policy courses.  As a related point, Southwestern Bell gained a huge advantage over ATT by bundling minutes into a monthly package rather than using the long established (and seemingly consumer friendly), pay per minute approach.  Besides cost differences of bundling, the pricing mechanism becomes an attribute of the product itself that consumers may value for their own transactions costs (convenience) purposes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
