|
Post by Chris Evans on Oct 19, 2009 14:16:40 GMT -6
Share your thoughts on The BlueJay Insider's column on television covering football games.
I will start it off. The Insider asked: Does it increase your athletic budget? The Insider says no, and I agree with that and will take it a step further.
To my knowledge, television is not paying the schools any type of income for the broadcasts like they used to just a few years ago. So, add in the low attendance and Guthrie losses money. Not only football, but the other GHS athletic budget (teams).
Just curious how many more fans in Ardmore would have come to the game (2 hours away) if it was not on TV?
On the other side, what if television broadcasted the game and if the gate money does not hit the teams average income then why not have the television people pay the difference to get to the average income. If they exceed the gate money average then payment would not be necessary by the television people.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Evans on Oct 19, 2009 14:51:49 GMT -6
I will also say this television does have its positives as The BlueJay Insider stated and the Guthrie-McGuinness broadcast last year did not have an impact on the gate, but it was the first game of the year with good weather.
I think schools just need to make strategic moves when scheduling a home game for television. I have noticed that Jenks and Union do not televise any home games. Outside of their game in Week 2 (neutral field), but I would be curious if the television broadcasts pays the schools a fee?
|
|
|
Post by bluejays5 on Oct 19, 2009 16:50:43 GMT -6
Great points BUT
Lets put a different spin on this, how about from our student-athletes point of view.
The televised games do help with recruiting process & exposure. I know of @ least 3 D1 scouts who watched the game Thurs night. They were looking @ several of our players & of course CA players too. Due to thurs. night meetings they couldn't make the game, but YES were able to watch during meetings. Im sure a few others were watching whether JUCO/D-2. The ultimate goal is for the schools' player to make it to the next level & yes the school should share some expense to that. The student-athletes are helping to build the program.
|
|
|
Post by bluejayfan on Oct 20, 2009 9:08:55 GMT -6
We haven’t missed a home or away game since game 1 of the 2007 season. I seriously thought about staying home for this one. Not because I could watch it from the comfort of my living room, but because the thought of getting blown out by CA made me nauseous. I got the whole speech from my family about supporting the team even when they are down, not giving up on our Bluejays, blah, blah, blah……. Well we attended the game, and I’m glad we did. I did have that sick feeling early in the 1st quarter, but at the end of the game I was proud of our boys for not giving up, for holding their heads high. And It’s going to make it that much sweeter when we beat them next year. I guess what I’m trying to say is…. I think people stayed home because they couldn’t stand the thought of witnessing the Bluejays getting beat “bad” by an arch rival on our home field. I don’t think it had much to do with the weather, or the tv coverage. I would bet if we were expected to blow out CA the stands would have been full like a homecoming game. I hope the Jays continue to get TV exposure, but I had no Idea the school wasn’t paid for participating. I’m sure CH 52 receives tons of money from advertisers.
|
|
|
Post by uknow on Oct 20, 2009 18:49:02 GMT -6
So why not just take this a step farther, How much does Guthrie High School and other programs make from the Radio broadcast? I understand you point about the TV that people more then likely to stay home and watch a TV broadcast, but I talk to people all the time that say they will just stay at home and listen to it on the radio, or say I didn't get a chance to listen to it on Friday, I will listen to it on Sunday during the re-broadcast on GSP. Don't get me wrong I am one of the people that listen to it on the internet because I cannot make it home to watch the games, but I don't think it is very fair to say that TV is the reason why people don't show up, it might have a little more to do about the product on the field. If the schools are going to say no more TV because they are lossing money at the gate, shouldn't they also say no more radio either?
And before people blast me saying we should get rid of the radio broadcast, I am just making a counter point. I think the radio broadcast's are great and Chris and Kasey should be proud of their time on the air.
|
|
|
Post by bluejay4life on Oct 20, 2009 22:33:16 GMT -6
Actually, Jenks and Union do not have a policy that states they do not have home games on tv. www.satellitetv-news.com/2009-oklahoma-high-school-football-broadcast-schedule-on-cox-and-ksbi-tv/Sept 4: Broken Arrow at Union on Cox. Sept 18: Owasso at Jenks on Cox. second, Why would Guthrie do that? The publicity they get is priceless. Yes, the school doesn't directly benefit from the financial part of the broadcast, however, scouts do get noticed via the television. Especially in non-contact times, it's a very easy way monitoring a recruit without actually being in violation of attending a game. Second, weather is a huge factor why I think so many stayed home. The Ardmore game had good attendance, plus you even said last year's McGuiness game had good attendance, and good weather. Why would you go sit in the rain and watch the game, when you can easily do it from home. uknow makes a great point, I re-iterate what he says. I stayed home Friday. Because I was sick mainly, however, the radio broadcast and the television allowed me to do my article with ease. I think if the district was to stop KSBI and Cox Communications from broadcasting the games, it would be a major step back in recruiting for the players who work hard. Some, who might not have the money to go to the camps, and rely on the slim publicity that is put out via the live games.
|
|