The primary point I was focusing on was this: "we can't see our teams because the billionaire owners want more profit." And with that observation having been made, we can end this thread at any time, as this is what it all boils down to. Following the money leads to the culprits, yet again, just like clockwork.
Here's the thing which tips most people against CSN: The completely tone-deaf marketing strategies, one after the other, which insult anyone watching/listening who has even a modicum of intelligence or common sense, and the either outright or borderline falsehoods which directly follow phrases like 'giving you the facts'. This clown Hutchings goes on the radio and reads his little commercial, which sounds to me like it must have been written by his daughter in junior high, and says 'Yeah I know you are angry and confused, so I want to give you the facts.' Then goes on to say that the providers are completely ignoring the 85,000 people demanding the service (but offers no proof, and yet it's a 'fact'?), that the providers claim CSN's price is too high, while at the same time creating and investing in networks in other markets (that is a non-sequitur), and then flatly states that the providers 'Took away your ability to watch your favorite sports teams' (which is the one which really aggravates me - as it is a blatant lie, and I believe the vast majority of people listening know it - the providers took NOTHING away, CSN and the TEAMS 'took it away'). (Do I even need to mention that completely stupid tv commercial with the young dudes about to watch the game, but mysteriously can't find the channel? 'Dude, it's not your remote, it's your tv provider!' Who exactly did they think was going to be swayed by that kind of advertising? r****ded stoners? That's who they think we are, that's who they think you are.( The problem for me personally then is this: just like with people, and even with politicians (whom I barely classify as people), once you know they are willing to look you in the eye and lie to you with a straight face, then they have lost me from that point forward, and they are not going to regain my trust. They are done. They have shown me they have no respect for me, CSN's management (and by extension Les and Crane) have been so absurdly out of touch with their market, and so unbelievably arrogant, that they actually put out marketing material which actively insults and belittles everyone who sees/hears it, while at the same time, believing that it was a good idea. This is why the majority of people are against CSN. Not because the providers refuse to buckle, but simply because we don't like being talked down to by arrogant idiots.
Well now we are at 3 years of data. I wish CSN would release data points for the years prior since it will be so sparkling. Anecdotally I recall Drayton McClane calling the Astros a small market team based on attendance and tv ratings. I'm still waiting for ONE year of data from you that proves that CSN is comparable to other teams they compete with.
The thing for me is that the provider statements are similarly insulting, yet few are willing to call them out on it. You think the costs of sports networks are insulting these days? Well, you set that precedent by signing so many new, re-bundled packages in recent years. Accept your role. You don't want to make everyone pay for a channel only a minority will watch? Sounds great, let me know when I can opt out of HGTV, Lifetime and Oxygen, among many others. You think overpriced sports channels should be on a special sports tier? Awesome, let me know when a non-Houston RSN is asked to do that. I completely agree with you that most public statements from the CSN side are tone-deaf, disingenuous and insulting because they play to the lowest common denominator. In general, they speak to their audience like we're idiots. We're on the same page there. But that's exactly how I feel about the public statements from providers, too.
So gents what channel is Concash on these days for uverse, dish, etc? I still can't believe some people are defending those greedy SOB's, probably on their payroll.
Yes, three of the worst baseball/basketball years in Houston sports history. Anyone with any sort of perspective can tell you that years like 2010-2012 here are not historical norms for these franchises. The burden of proof isn't on me. I'm fine admitting that I don't know. That's why I want a public meeting: to bring the evidence out into the open so we can have a better idea as to the dynamics at play. But if you're going to try and draw a hasty conclusion over expected ratings for 15-20 years, it seems silly to do so using only numbers from the absolute worst of previous years.
Ha. Sorry, I'll take her actual words over a vague "impression" from someone whose mind was already made up.
I don't really count 2010-2012 as 'three of the worst' basketball years in Houston history. That era was pretty much the definition of mediocrity.
I'm not trying to predict 15-20 years based on those ratings. Not once have I done that. However, the Astros ratings would have to jump by 1000% to reach the Yankees. Do you think if the Astros go to the playoffs they will see ratings jump 1000%? And please stop acting like you are really taking the "I don't know, I'm not on anyone's side" position because it isn't true. As for whether the number is false, Jim Crane, Hutchings and multiple Rockets execs have gone on the radio and not once have they denied the asking price that was reported.
You're indirectly doing it, if you're using evidence from the past three years to make a projection as to the channel's worth. I don't know how much ratings would rise if the Astros made the playoffs. I'd need to see data from 2005 and 2006 to make an educated guess. I'd also need to know the asking price for CSN, relative to New York. And no, sorry, I'm not going to stop saying it, because it's the truth. I blame both sides in this.
Then you are naive about political speech. It's not what she said, it is the fact that she chose to say anything on the subject. Impressions are what people remember, not text.
We're talking about both franchises. It's rare for both the Astros and Rockets to go three years without any postseason appearances and without any hope. With the exception of 2000, the Astros were contenders basically from 1995 through 2006. In McLane's first 14 years, they had the fourth-best record in all of MLB. They also had two icons in Biggio and Bagwell, and later on Pettitte/Clemens on the World Series teams. The Rockets missed the playoffs one time from 1986 through 1999, won two championships, and produced the greatest athlete in Houston history in Hakeem. After a brief rebuild, they made the playoffs 5 times in 6 years between 2004 and 2009 and had two legit NBA stars in Yao and Tracy. It's rare to find a three-year stretch in which neither team makes the playoffs and neither team even has a single identifiable "star" face, but that's what happened for the Astros and Rockets from 2010 through 2012. That's why that timeframe doesn't make for a good comparison going forward.
Exactly right. The Rockets have had above .500 records each of the last four years and were in the hunt for the playoffs up until the end in all four years. The teams were exciting to watch, with a reputation for team basketball and blue collar toughness, and a real ability to step up and beat any team in the league on a given night during that period, at least during the three years before this one. In fact, even though this year's team made the playoffs, I would love to somehow see this year's team against last year's team (Marcus Camby, Louis Scola, Chandler Parsons, Kevin Martin, Kyle Lowry, Goran Dragic, Chae Budinger, Patrick Patterson, Cortney Lee). In fact, it is not clear to me at all that this team is better than any of the teams from the previous three years. While none of those teams were any threat to win an NBA title, neither were they bad teams by any means at all.
Absolutely, and her "intolerable" statement was directed toward the providers, not CSN Houston. Moreover, while CSN Houston had already agreed to an open public meeting, she had to specifically send a letter to the providers and ask them to do so. I'm not saying she thinks the CSN side is perfect. But if your "impression" based on her speaking out is that she's only blaming CSN, you're letting your agenda drive your analysis.
HA. This is the NBA, a sport driven by stars. Everything you said -- "team basketball", "exciting to watch", "blue-collar toughness" -- can be applied to the San Antonio Spurs. You know, the team David Stern and the league office hate because they're unmarketable and produced four of the lowest-rated Finals ever. I don't know that this year's team is much better, but the context of this thread is television ratings. I do know that this year's team, with James Harden and Jeremy Lin, is infinitely more marketable and draws more attention to the average sports fan than the prior three Rocket teams. It's not even close.
If you find some documentation of the actual television ratings for the Rockets, this year versus last year, please feel free to post them. I do not believe they will show what you seem to believe that they will.
You mean compare last season where there was full coverage, to this season where nobody but Comcast gets it? That makes no sense
Exactly. There's no way to make a comparison, unless we can get Comcast, Phonoscope or any other CSN provider to turn over their numbers for both years. Overall numbers aren't comparable for extremely obvious reasons.
