NBC beats Fox for Derby rights
 

NBC Sports has reached a five-year deal with Churchill Downs Inc. to broadcast the Kentucky Derby through 2015, the two companies announced on Thursday.

The deal is worth approximately $25 million, or $5 million a year, according to officials with knowledge of the agreement, an amount that is less, per year, than NBC paid for the broadcast rights to the Derby in a previous five-year deal that expired this year. The agreement also includes rights to the Kentucky Oaks and Derby and Oaks day undercard, including coverage of the Kentucky Derby Red Carpet.

The deal also includes the broadcast rights to the Kentucky Oaks, which will be shown on one of NBC’s cable channels. The Oaks is held the Friday before the Derby, and in the past two years, the race has been broadcast on NBC’s Bravo cable channel.

Bidding for the rights started this summer. According to the officials, Fox had sought the rights to the race for the first time, but NBC’s proposal won out.

http://drf.com/news/churchill-downs-...cky-derby-deal

i'm just happy its gonna be televised


-bt-

i'm just happy it isn't being shortened to a mile and a sixteenth.

""According to NBC, more people watched the 2010 Derby broadcast than any Derby since 1989, with 16.5 million viewers. In 2010, both Churchill and NBC attempted to position the broadcast to attract more women viewers and non-racing fans by focusing on Kentucky culture and the celebrities that typically attend the Derby."

Oh boy. More rich women in hats. I was wondering why they never hunted me down in the infield for an interview.

“We’re excited to extend our relationship with the Derby and our business partnership with Churchill Downs, a partnership that is one of the finest examples of two organizations coming together to build an event,” said Dick Ebersol, the chairman of NBC Universal Sports and Olympics, in a statement.

"Build an event." That's insulting.

Not really, that's why the Derby is even the race it is today. It was built into an event, thankfully before "reality tv" ever existed. I just don't want to have to look at anyone from the Jersey Shore cast before the race. Col. Wynn got women to see it as the place to be. It's not so farfetched for Bravo to do the same. I'm just frustrated that we can't have the races on the same channel. It's hard to get NBC to hand it off to ABC even if the Belmont is on the line. They're just not going to work too hard to up another network's ratings. At least on ABC, we get ESPN pulled in for actual coverage of racing. When Bravo's involved, it revolves around food, fashion, and taking wagers on how many gay men who've never been to a racetrack are going to be on television that day.

The Derby is watched by the most people in a long time this year... how can that be a bad thing? I know I've posted about this before, but we as core horse racing fans and handicappers cannot look at the major horse racing broadcasts (even, to some extent, the Breeders' Cup) as extensions of a simulcast signal. Totally different audience. Which is why, in my opinion on a different topic, the funky camera angles are okay... most people we are trying to reach in those broadcasts likes them. The rest of the core horse racing fans are not going to not watch or quit the game because of a blimp view on the far turn.

Derby was watched by the most people in a long time because it poured down rain the greater Louisville area. I don't think that's a coincidence.

You're overestimating the power of the weather in the greater Louisville area and what impact it has on national TV ratings.

Really? I'd love to see the ratings in the parts of the country - including Louisville - where it rained on Derby day last year compared to places where it didn't. I think you're overestimating the power of celebrity stories and Donna Brothers in drawing Joe Schmoe to his television set to watch a horse race.

My points above.
1. Showing celebs is fine, but it won't bring one single new fan to the game. I need more evidence before I declare it increases ratings.

2. The Derby was an "Event" long before Ebersol and his buddies showed up to "Build" it.

Louisville is the 50th largest TV Market. Just ahead of Buffalo and WBS. It is 0.582% of the total US Television Market. If the % ratings went up was only six tenths of a percent, then maybe this theory holds some water.

In 2009 the ratings were 16.3 million, the first year the Oaks was shown on Bravo. 14.8% increase. This year, the ratings were the highest in 18 years with 16.5 million for a 1% increase. The bump into 2009 was way more than one market, and the increase to this year would represent more than one market if we assumed that zero growth occured everywhere outside of Louisville. Plus, 156k attended the race versus 153k in 2009, so the weather couldn't have been that bad to where every single person in Louisville was watching the race on TV and not anywhere else (including the track).

Do you honestly think that mainstream America (the people who bets probably less than 10 races a year) would tune in to watch discussions on Beyer and Speed figures for two hours? I'm guessing no. They need all their features to keep people interested until they get to the race. Otherwise people aren't going to tune it in until the horses are getting in the gate.
Obviously it sucks for the die hards, but let's face it we are really not the target audience they are looking to attract.

As far as the event goes, obviously it has always been one. But I really think he means turning it into more of a social event than a sporting event. Almost like Mardi Gras in Kentucky. Probably not the best scenario for the game, but hopefully it will be enough to attract more people.

Theory didn't hold a drop of water then...

I agree with some of your points, but why can't they have both? The puff pieces have their place, because people want to see them. But, if they get someone like Beyer on to discuss the race or races it can't hurt. Teaching people how to bet, or why certain people like certain horses can only help.

More knowledgable people are more likely to bet more. The better informed you are, the more likely you'll do well. If people just view gambling as a losing prospect, we'll never get the kind of fans the sport needs. But with the right people, keeping it simple and showing people that you can win betting, I think it could be effective.

I personally think that's one thing that hurts the sport. Think about how long you handicap, reading the form, charts, watch replays and with all that it's still a very hard game to beat. It's one of the reasons people pefer other forms of gambling. Instant gratification, with no need to do any sort of research. It's unfortunate for the game because I really think it hurts possible future players. But on the flip side, that's what makes the game so great for people who love it. Trying to put that puzzle together and the feeling you get when you do.
Also when it comes to cappin, I personally think the Derby is the worst/hardest race of the year to cap, just because most of the horses have the same running lines. For it to work, you would really need like a handicapping for dummies pre show. But we all know that would never happen. Sure it helps to have guys like Beyer talking about the race, but if 80% of the country have no idea who he is, then you would almost be better off served having a recognizable person giving his or her analysis. You would probably have a better chance of the audience not changing the channel.

It might hurt, but if used the right way I think it could help. Look at Poker. While it's instant gratification winning individual hands, the end goal is to win the tournament or whatever game you are playing. Those things take a long time.

I think if you took 20 people that have never bet or been to a track or casino before....Split them up. 10 of them go with some poker pro's and learn about the game for the day. Then take the other 10 and let them go with Beyer, Crist, Serling, etc. for the day. Let them teach the game and about betting.

Then the next day the 10 poker players go to a casino and play poker for the day. The 10 horseplayers go to a track and play races for the day. IMO, and maybe I'm biased because I'm a horseplayer, those horseplayers would come back again. I'm sure some of the poker players would also. But if people are shown that tracks aren't what the perception is and the game isn't like it's percieved we have a chance.

A little education could go a long way IMO.

How about a light hearted roving reporter like Andy grabbing about 3 attendees prior to a race and they can show us their ticket and do a brief "man on the street" interview ? The reporter can ask the folks for one race , "NBC is looking for the winner of this race, who's got the ticket ?" Have fun with 3 people and the winner receives a $75 voucher from NBC . Next race from a different part of the track..."NBC offers $100 voucher for the exacta ?" ...Then "Who's got some show bets ? $50 if your ticket cashes." ...etc....seems like fun to me.

Sure tournaments take a long time, but they don't wait 20 minutes in between hands. Many people want/need that constant action.

As far as your experiment goes, I agree (although probably biased like you). There is nothing like a nice afternoon at the track. It beats the hell out of sitting at a card table for an entire day.

A little education could go along way to grabbing some fans. But in the long run, I just think the majority of gamblers don't want to have to invest time doing homework. Then throw in the time it takes in between the races, it just makes the sport not an attractive gambling option to people who are looking for that fast action.

Didn't they give a give 10,000 grand to bet with last year? That wasn't enough?

I think that many people will turn off a guy like Andy Beyer just because they don't know who he is. Are they really going to care that Morty from Cleveland likes the 2 in the upcoming race? I'm thinking no.

Now if you said that they would have someone discussing/demonstrating different types of wagers (i.e. pick 3's-pick 4's) and how much money they could win, maybe that would intrest a few people that they might want to eventually jump into the water.

poker's television success was all about the "peek" camera giving the viewer an imagined way to be part of the action. there are a few video's available of wsop events from the 80's and they're like watching paint dry.

wpt's innovation of showing viewers the hidden cards made the difference and led to the explosion of interest in poker. the right technology met the right production idea.

i'm not sure you'll ever see anything similar in racing. they keep trying with blimp shots, helmet cam's and tracking camera's but none of that revolutionizes the experience of the viewer the way knowing more than all the players at the poker table does.

i play poker and bet horses. handicapping races successfuly is magnitudes of difficulty harder than winning at cards. i don't think there's any way you can "educate" a general audience on handicapping in a way that doesn't drive most of them to another channel.

any bump in audience is good. even if the cost is 45 minutes of commercials and fluff for every 2 minutes of racing.

That is all Andy needs, more access to young blonde waitresses.

If you can educate just one person, it would be a good start. The problem is, a lot of the times the "experts" aren't experts at all. There are some really sharp minds in horse racing and people with a lifetime of knowledge.

What I'm suggesting is, on big race days, instead of 90% of the TV coverage being about fluff, split it up a bit. Introduce some of the basics and do a little teaching. It could be incorporated into the upcoming race. What is the worst that could happen? A few more people become interested in betting, because they know more about it and won't feel like they are wasting their time.

Horse racing tries to be something it isn't. Instead of embracing what it is, the want to make themselves Disney and it isn't.

Realistically, this is something that should be done to a level on racing channels such as TVG and HRTV. I'll use TVG as an example (because that the only one I have), but they really don't do things like that and they are a full time racing channel. Sure they give out picks and (usually ridculous) pick 4 plays. But they really don't have kind of basic handicapping teaching show. I don't know what percentages of households have one of the channels, but maybe that would be the way to go. A major network would only cover so much time in a segment about basic capping. But have TVG sponser the spot and then have them promote their daily handicapping show/series. This way if someone is interested about exploring different types of angles/bets, he/she would be able to tune in and maybe pick something up.

Really what harm could it do for TVG to produce 5 one hour shows and air them one a day in the morning before live racing starts? It could benifit them for current and possible future customers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see your point but you need to lighten up . Last year's $10,000 guy was fun.
http://web.sny.tv/schedule/beermoney.jsp Or they can just give away cash on the spot . Did you ever see "Beer Money" the 1/2 hour show from NY where they ask different folks, mostly in bars, trivia questions for $10, then they can roll it if they get the next question right for $20 and then if they get all 3 right they win $100 or lose it all . I think it's a helluva lot of fun to see the characters in this world have some fun . Especially at spots around the track .

I agree that was fun. They took you through the guy's thought process and so on.
But to go around asking random people, who do you have and having to hear them say I bet the 14 because that my cat's name isn't going to do much for the sport/program.

Have you ever watched the Late Double on TVG when they go around and talk to people in the crowd? If so then you should see my point.