Jump to content
CoachWrestling

Finals moved from ESPN to ESPN2

Recommended Posts

i get the stance that if you have ESPN you have ESPN2 as well.

 

while there is a small point to be made that ESPN > ESPN2 prestige-wise, that's not what concerns me the most.

 

a high-profile head coach told me that the finals might be delayed or not aired on time if a women's BBall game runs late.

 

i think everyone can agree that we don't want that.

Two questions

1. Would you rather they just start and viewers miss a match?

2. If we were in that same boat would you want them to cut away from Coon vs. Snyder to start a women's cricket match?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i get the stance that if you have ESPN you have ESPN2 as well.

 

while there is a small point to be made that ESPN > ESPN2 prestige-wise, that's not what concerns me the most.

 

a high-profile head coach told me that the finals might be delayed or not aired on time if a women's BBall game runs late.

 

i think everyone can agree that we don't want that.

Do you think the NCAA finals should be on flowrestling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the difference between ESPN and espn2 nominal, though I can understand how to some this is a perceived slight.

 

Much more telling and troubling is that ESPN has countered our programming with a boxing match. This is a major barrier to attracting casual fans. For the entirety of my 25 years in the sport I have heard the refrain that it is crucial to the growth of the sport that wrestling be showcased on a major television station regularly.

 

Frankly every single person who finds their way to this board would find the finals be it on flo, espn2, or cspan. The people who casually consume a Saturday night boxing fight are the EXACT demographic we would benefit from exposing to our premier event.

 

I don't feel wrestling has been disrespected by being pushed to the deuce, but getting bumped for boxing is a clear indicator that ESPN places no priority on generating momentum or gaining new wrestling viewers for the future. Their presentation is still excellent and I am looking forward to watching the gold medal matches on ESPN2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the difference between ESPN and espn2 nominal, though I can understand how to some this is a perceived slight.

 

Much more telling and troubling is that ESPN has countered our programming with a boxing match. This is a major barrier to attracting casual fans. For the entirety of my 25 years in the sport I have heard the refrain that it is crucial to the growth of the sport that wrestling be showcased on a major television station regularly.

 

Frankly every single person who finds their way to this board would find the finals be it on flo, espn2, or cspan. The people who casually consume a Saturday night boxing fight are the EXACT demographic we would benefit from exposing to our premier event.

 

I don't feel wrestling has been disrespected by being pushed to the deuce, but getting bumped for boxing is a clear indicator that ESPN places no priority on generating momentum or gaining new wrestling viewers for the future. Their presentation is still excellent and I am looking forward to watching the gold medal matches on ESPN2.

At this point, I think the avenues to grow the sport are through social and media sites like flowrestling and track wrestling getting high school wrestlers to pay attention. I don’t think we can expect much from boxing fans getting interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the difference between ESPN and espn2 nominal, though I can understand how to some this is a perceived slight.

 

Much more telling and troubling is that ESPN has countered our programming with a boxing match. This is a major barrier to attracting casual fans. For the entirety of my 25 years in the sport I have heard the refrain that it is crucial to the growth of the sport that wrestling be showcased on a major television station regularly.

 

Frankly every single person who finds their way to this board would find the finals be it on flo, espn2, or cspan. The people who casually consume a Saturday night boxing fight are the EXACT demographic we would benefit from exposing to our premier event.

 

I don't feel wrestling has been disrespected by being pushed to the deuce, but getting bumped for boxing is a clear indicator that ESPN places no priority on generating momentum or gaining new wrestling viewers for the future. Their presentation is still excellent and I am looking forward to watching the gold medal matches on ESPN2.

 

 

Its just as likely the boxing fans will see the wrestling championships and check out a match during commercial breaks. That can't be a bad thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of valid points have been made. I very rarely put on ESPN2 unless I am looking for something specific. Being moved from ESPN may lose wrestling a few casual sport fans which are those that are needed if college wrestling is to grow. What frustrates me is that I know many former wrestlers that will have their channel turned in to basketball and not ESPN2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit that I am going to have to do some homework to find which channel ESPN2 is via the local provider. While everyone who has ESPN also has ESPN2 (I have neither one), does that mean viewership is the same for both? I know that ESPN is Channel 33 on my tv, but I wasn't aware that ESPN2 was 34. (I just looked)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit that I am going to have to do some homework to find which channel ESPN2 is via the local provider. While everyone who has ESPN also has ESPN2 (I have neither one), does that mean viewership is the same for both? I know that ESPN is Channel 33 on my tv, but I wasn't aware that ESPN2 was 34. (I just looked)

Really? I have had a few different cable providers over the years and I think almost every one of them had ESPN2 as +1 from ESPN. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i get the stance that if you have ESPN you have ESPN2 as well.

 

while there is a small point to be made that ESPN > ESPN2 prestige-wise, that's not what concerns me the most.

 

a high-profile head coach told me that the finals might be delayed or not aired on time if a women's BBall game runs late.

 

i think everyone can agree that we don't want that.

 

Will they delay the start of the finals? They already structure the event around TV, push the start time back 30 minutes if need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the average number of people who watched the finals over the last 6 years:

 

2012: 537,000

2013: 860,000

2014: 630,000

2015: 694,000

2016: 655,000

2017: 753,000

 

2013 was Dake v Taylor. I think 2017 was the first time ESPN added streaming views to their cable broadcast numbers, but I did not double check to make sure.

 

2018 will be an interesting test. if the numbers are significantly down, it would be evidence that being on ESPN v ESPN2 makes a difference in exposure. if the numbers are the same, it would be evidence that the finals can guarantee an audience no matter what channel its on. 

 

I don't think it's a good sign that ESPN moved the finals to ESPN2 but I don't necessarily thing its a big deal either. maybe ESPN's programmers chose to run the finals on ESPN2 as a test? I also agree that it doesn't make a difference for anyone on this board. the number of people that get ESPN and ESPN2 is virtually zero. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the average number of people who watched the finals over the last 6 years:

 

2012: 537,000

2013: 860,000

2014: 630,000

2015: 694,000

2016: 655,000

2017: 753,000

 

2013 was Dake v Taylor. I think 2017 was the first time ESPN added streaming views to their cable broadcast numbers, but I did not double check to make sure.

 

2018 will be an interesting test. if the numbers are significantly down, it would be evidence that being on ESPN v ESPN2 makes a difference in exposure. if the numbers are the same, it would be evidence that the finals can guarantee an audience no matter what channel its on. 

 

I don't think it's a good sign that ESPN moved the finals to ESPN2 but I don't necessarily thing its a big deal either. maybe ESPN's programmers chose to run the finals on ESPN2 as a test? I also agree that it doesn't make a difference for anyone on this board. the number of people that get ESPN and ESPN2 is virtually zero. 

 

2013 was also the year wrestling was temporarily cut as an Olympic event and you had the huge "Save Olympic Wrestling" initiative going on, which brought in a lot of people to (at the least) awareness of the sport who weren't so much before.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i get the stance that if you have ESPN you have ESPN2 as well.

 

while there is a small point to be made that ESPN > ESPN2 prestige-wise, that's not what concerns me the most.

 

a high-profile head coach told me that the finals might be delayed or not aired on time if a women's BBall game runs late.

 

i think everyone can agree that we don't want that.

Do you watch college football? What about college basketball? It is normal for events to be delayed based on an event before it running over. This years Sugar Bowl was pushed back at least fifteen minutes based on the other playoff game running over. Again, not a big deal. Edited by superbowlhomeboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you watch college football? What about college basketball? It is normal for events to be delayed based on an event before it running over. This years Sugar Bowl was pushed back at least fifteen minutes based on the other playoff game running over. Again, not a big deal.

If they have to delay it 15 mins, I’m ok with that. Don’t want to relive the finals years ago when it was Dubuque-Ott and they joined the broadcast with like less than a minute left in the second period because a random tennis match ran over(wasn’t even a major tennis tournament either).

 

 

As long as the finals air live, I could care less if it’s on ESPN 1or2.

Edited by tec87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of valid points have been made. I very rarely put on ESPN2 unless I am looking for something specific. Being moved from ESPN may lose wrestling a few casual sport fans which are those that are needed if college wrestling is to grow. What frustrates me is that I know many former wrestlers that will have their channel turned in to basketball and not ESPN2.

 

 

I admit that I am going to have to do some homework to find which channel ESPN2 is via the local provider. While everyone who has ESPN also has ESPN2 (I have neither one), does that mean viewership is the same for both? I know that ESPN is Channel 33 on my tv, but I wasn't aware that ESPN2 was 34. (I just looked)

 

Again, ESPN and ESPN2 are pretty much the same.  Might have been less confusing for all if they'd done like FoxSports (FS1 & FS2) and renamed ESPN to ESPN1 (thus N1 & N2).

 

I'd say most basketball fans know to look at both the N and the N2 (they are right next to each other on the guide) to see which game they want to watch.  Many times they are showing two basketball games and doesn't appear there is a necessarily a difference or bias toward which game (on N or N2) is expected to have higher viewership.  Just like FS1 & FS2 showing two UEFA matches at the same time on 1 & 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, ESPN and ESPN2 are pretty much the same.  Might have been less confusing for all if they'd done like FoxSports (FS1 & FS2) and renamed ESPN to ESPN1 (thus N1 & N2).

 

I'd say most basketball fans know to look at both the N and the N2 (they are right next to each other on the guide) to see which game they want to watch.  Many times they are showing two basketball games and doesn't appear there is a necessarily a difference or bias toward which game (on N or N2) is expected to have higher viewership.  Just like FS1 & FS2 showing two UEFA matches at the same time on 1 & 2.

 

I'm pretty sure ESPN always gets the better game compared to ESPN2 if they both have college football or basketball on.   Sure, "availability" may be the same but much more people watch ESPN than ESPN2, especially among casual sports fans (which most people that aren't going to be watching NCAA basketball probably are).

 

http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/fs1-sees-audience-uptick-2017-espn-espn2-nbcsn-see-decline.html

 

On a related note, comparing to FS1 or 2 isn't really a fair comparison since ESPN, despite declines, has much higher ratings than FS1 or 2.  The article even comments that FS1 and 2 are more trying to compete with ESPN2 as opposed to ESPN.

 

I agree with the poster saying it will be a good test to help see what % of the viewership was specifically tuning in for it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="1032004"

I agree with the poster saying it will be a good test to help see what % of the viewership was specifically tuning in for it or not.

 

 

The only test I would be interested in is the number of non wrestling fanatics watching.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone who has ESPN has ESPN 2. We don't have a cable subscription, but do get ESPN through Internet TV with Charter Spectrum. We don't get ESPN 2. As more folks move from cable to Internet TV you can't assume that the bundling works the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only test I would be interested in is the number of non wrestling fanatics watching.

 

.

 

Well that's basically the same thing.   Based on the data above, since 2015 viewership has been consistently between 650K-750K.   So I think it's safe to say if viewership goes down due to the change, much of the difference can be attributed to less non-wrestling fanatics watching.   If it goes up it's probably because most of the people watching as a whole are wrestling fanatics IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone who has ESPN has ESPN 2. We don't have a cable subscription, but do get ESPN through Internet TV with Charter Spectrum. We don't get ESPN 2. As more folks move from cable to Internet TV you can't assume that the bundling works the same way.

Spectrum has both ESPN and ESPN2 - channels 800 & 801 just like has FS1 & FS2 811 & 812.  Of course numbers could vary by region.

 

Perhaps just check to see if viewable on your guide, perhaps haven't selected as a favorite for the guide.  Or perhaps there's an upgrade subscription option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×