casualbil Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Why are the TV games broadcast primarily on Charter Cable vs. another outlet (i.e. KPLR)? I beleive in the past KPLR was a player. Many locals (self incl.) have opted for satellite service over cable. Today (as in times past) I searched valiantly for an "alternate" channel on the dish for the game but struck out. If you're not on Charter, you might as well give up being a SLU fan. Granted, Charter is a local corporation with a big market. But like it or not, SLU has an image issue when pitted against the local Mizzou and Illini crowd. SLU is the "local" D-1 product, and as such, should "demand" a local outlet that reaches EVERYONE within 50 miles. Mizzou draws from StL and other parts of Missouri, and the Illini draw from the local area but also from central and upstate Illinois. SLU's radius of influence is considerbly smaller than the other big players. They need to protect the demographic radius that they draw from. And please don't get me started on radio. Although KMOX owns the rights to Billikens basketball, they won't hesitate then pawn them off to a "lesser" signal when ever they see fit, and this just doesn't sit well with me. The Athletic Dept. is doing good things to improve the program and image (the move to the A-10, the new on-campus arena, etc.) And I really beleive in Coach Soderberg and think he could establish himself as one of the great Billiken coaches of all time. But the bottom line is you NEED to reach out to casual fans and and potential NEW fans. How does the AD expect locals to know who SLU is if you have to search through secondary and tertiary media outlets to find them. Sorry if I'm ranting. But I've read in a number of posts here and elsewhere where the Billikens are looked upon as a "second-class" program. Doug Woolard and the Athletic Dept. need to find local "free" outlets that are 100% dedicated to the Billikens. Sure it might mean we go to a limited "nighttime" signal station. But when you consider the "core" SLU following, a signal that covers a 50-mile radius with a strong daytime/nighttime signal may all you need. Add in live webcasts and you'll likely have most hard-nosed SLU fans. With apologies to Dennis Miller... that's just my opinion, I could be wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesycow Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 ...the STL radio and TV markets can't afford to not televise or showcase Illinois or Mizzou sporting events. The market is too large (larger than the market for SLU basketball, unfortunately) to ignore just because neither school has "saint louis" in its name. There are a couple factors for this: 1. There are a significant amount of Illinois/Missouri alumni in the St. Louis area. 2. Both Illinois and Missouri have football programs, which allow for a "yearly access" to both programs for the casual sports fan with no ties to either school. 3. Missouri and Illinois have had traditionally succesful and highly ranked teams within the past 25 years. Illinois has made it to the final four, and Missouri has had numerous Big 8 championships. 4. SLU lost a lot of local exposure when Spoonhour left. Spoonball was a big deal in St. Louis, so much so that growing up everyone knew about Spoonball. Romar and Soderberg have both been excellent coaches, but seemingly less marketable than Spoonhour. 5. The Conference issue. No one here needs to try and convince me that Conference USA is not a legitimate big name conference, but to the nation, it shies in comparison to the Big 12 and Big 10. Both of these conferences have a history and tradition factor that is marketable to the area. I think that SLU deserves more exposure in St. Louis, definitely, but Illinois and Missouri represent so large a market that they often times take top billing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseugnekillib Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 I am not privy to the tv contract issues between SLU and Charter, FoxMidwest, and channels 2-4-5-11. However, I can only assume that the total package offered by Charter is the difference. By package, I'm including the men's bball games, a couple of the women's bball games, a good number of men's soccer games, a televised volleyball game or two, and a twice weekly taped studio program featuring the men's and women's bball coaches, both soccer coaches, the volleyball coach, and assorted athelic department staff members. While the men's bball program would be better served by being on the Fox sports channel, SLU's overall athletic program is better served by the Charter deal. Not all college athletic programs would go this route, but it's obvious to me that SLU is sensitive to its other programs and coaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trich Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 In addidtion to the reasons given by Tseugnekillib, the other T.V. outlets, in the area, gave the Bills the same shaft that KMOX does such as preempting their games. Charter has some limitations but overall, it is a better partner. My big complaint in the electronic media coverage is KMOX. I feel there has to be a better radio partner for the Bills games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 When channel 11 moved to the WB I think one of the main outlets for Billiken games was destroyed. The WB, like CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox does not want to replace its standard programming (Smallville on Wed nights is a good show by the way) with Billiken basketball. They won't even do it for the Cardinals. That leaves Fox Sports Midwest, which is broadcast to a much larger area than just St. Louis. As such, it makes more sense for them to show a Missouri game than a St. Louis game. For instance, who would they show this coming Wed. when we play at 8 at Mizzou plays at 7. Anybody know what the deal is with ESPN2 this Wed. The game was originally scheduled for national t.v. but on ESPN's t.v. listings they don't show the game. Granted neither team is having a good season but I always thought these games were guaranteed. If not, would Mizzou ever make national t.v. these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 as tseugnekillib states, the vision we all need to take when observing why slu and the athletic dept does what it does is many times probably driven by the overall athletics dept not just men's basketball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesycow Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 The Missouri Athletic Dept. website has the game on MSN. I'm not sure what that is, actually, but I'd guess Fox Sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 It varies by area (in St. Louis this means Fox Sports Midwest). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Obviously folks don't think SLU would outdraw obscure sitcoms and dramas for WB. Other major cities have many choices for cable services and competition, and the trend is moving in that direction. STL has primarily the dominance of Charter. It is unfortunate they can't get some fox sports games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualbil Posted February 17, 2004 Author Share Posted February 17, 2004 Thanks all. I didn't realize Charter carried more than mens B-Ball, so I can see how Charter is a good deal for SLU. I guess I'll just continue scanning the radio dial on game nights. Actually with my schedule I usually catch games on the radio vs. TV. But when I do get an opportunity to watch a game, it's disappointing to find out it's on Charter and I can't watch it anyway. Sigh... oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Karraker is terrrible and definitely belongs on radio. Why can't Ramsey or Highmark host the show ? Also the props look like cheap lacquered plywood and Brad didn't help himself by wearing an over=sized sweatshirt. This is the worst coaches show I have ever seen and there are many on cable and satellite. I won't even go into the other coaches other than some preparation in advance might add a nice touch. If not, then just tell me what time the volleyball coach is on so I can budget my time accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolbeans Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.