"Bloody" Day at ESPN today

Started by bayonetbrant, April 26, 2017, 10:01:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MetalDog

I used to listen to Dan Patrick when he was with Dibble on ESPNRadio.  I liked it just fine, but, I'm really tired of listening to people talk about things I don't care about in sports: who's the 5 all time greatest players?  Which current guy is better than the other?  What did this athlete/coach/owner say that doesn't really make a *uck in the real world that we are now going to blow up and obsess over until the next athlete/coach/owner makes an equally stupid and meaningless statement.  At least LeBatard talks about interesting things to me.  And the inside jokes are annoying are only annoying until you get them.  Then it's hysterical.  Like trying to get Greg Cody to give an answer just as the hard break is coming up so he's in mid-sentence when it hits.  Or when Ron Magill from Zoo Miami comes on.  He's got a great sense of humor and the questions he gets asked by the listeners are usually pretty good.
And the One Song to Rule Them All is Gimme Shelter - Rolling Stones


"If its a Balrog, I don't think you get an option to not consent......." - bob

bayonetbrant

here's a sport-by-sport rundown of who got whacked

http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/confirmed-espn-layoffs-constantly-updated.html

NBA and MLB took serious hits.
Hockey might as well not exist on ESPN anymore.
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

airboy

Here is another good article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/02/did-too-much-caitlyn-jenner-doom-espn-215093

I've been reading about ESPN as a business model for a couple of years in the Wall St. Journal.

Here is my take, which is a combination of what a couple of you pointed out plus a little something.

ESPN paid a ton of money for broadcast rights.  This gave them a high fixed cost.  They got hit by cord cutting hard.

Next, as Marty Ward has pointed out SportsCenter was a big proportion of their programming.  And with smart phones and internet video clips a lot of what made Sports Center unique was gone.  ESPN then had a huge programming gap to fill.

They filled the programming gap by having a couple of guys sit at a table and yell at each other over issues of the day.  Not that interesting because who really cares about that?  This type of programming tended to drift into politics.  They also overtly went into politics on some of their shows.  That irritated a chunk of their audience. 

The program my wife and I used to watch was Baseball Tonight.  But the quality of that really started sinking and we stopped watching.

Marty Ward

Quote from: airboy on May 03, 2017, 10:56:33 AM

The program my wife and I used to watch was Baseball Tonight.  But the quality of that really started sinking and we stopped watching.

I use to watch that too but now with MLB network I can get it basically any time. When ESPN started they were it for sports highlights and news. Now there are dozens of sports networks plus the internet to choose where to get the highlights and discussions from. They are certainly going to be hurting for a while.
If it looks like chicken, tastes like chicken, and feels like chicken but Chuck Norris says its beef, then it's beef.

If women had apostrophes instead of periods they would be even more possessive!

bayonetbrant

Quote from: airboy on May 03, 2017, 10:56:33 AMThey filled the programming gap by having a couple of guys sit at a table and yell at each other over issues of the day.  Not that interesting because who really cares about that?  This type of programming tended to drift into politics.  They also overtly went into politics on some of their shows.  That irritated a chunk of their audience.

Most of the debate shows - First Take, Around the Horn, PTI, and before that, The Sports Reporters - stayed largely away from politics / social issues, with only a few personality exceptions, most of whom are no longer at ESPN (Whitlock, for instance).

The 'problem' with the debate shows goes back to the highlights issue mentioned above.  You used to get Sportscenter on a loop in the mornings, from about 5am-noon or so, Eastern.  They'd re-run the 1 hour show for about 4-5 hours, then do a new morning edition that would run for 2-3 hours, too.  They did that b/c as a viewer you knew that you could always turn on ESPN at any point in time and see the highlights and get some comments on the games, and if you had an hour, you could come right back around to where you started watching, and catch up with everything.

Now, you don't need to do that.  I don't need to give up and hour to get all the scores, when I only care about half of them.  I don't need to sit thru 10 different shallow TV-length analyses when I can get 4 in-depth ones online for the sports I care about.

No one was watching Sportscenter, but at least someone was watching the debate shows.

You and I think they suck, but I'm guessing we're not fond of The Bachelor, either, and it's shown some staying power, too, so someone thinks it's worth putting on TV.
The cost to produce the debate shows is much lower too, since they don't need to pay as many highlight rights.

But the net effect was to drive more people away from watching.

So you had cord-cutters that pulled $ out of the guaranteed bottom line
But you also have channel-changers, and they're pulling $ out of the variable bottom line, and the viewership from the live games hasn't proven large enough to support the exorbitant rights fees ESPN has paid.
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Marty Ward

With games on 3-4 days and at all times MNF is not the draw that it use to be. If the NFL cans the Thursday night game and they get better match-ups then maybe MNF will become more of a thing. I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN starts streaming MNF to get back some of the cord cutters.
If it looks like chicken, tastes like chicken, and feels like chicken but Chuck Norris says its beef, then it's beef.

If women had apostrophes instead of periods they would be even more possessive!

bayonetbrant

#66
ESPN is paying $1.8bil for their NFL package of 17 games, 1-2 playoff games, and no Super Bowls, and they get crap games, especially late in the season

Fox is paying $1.1bil for 2 games/week, plus playoffs, plus Super Bowl, and they aren't worried about cord-cutters
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Marty Ward

Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 03, 2017, 12:18:39 PM
ESPN is paying $1.8bil for their NFL package of 17 games, 1-2 playoff games, and no Super Bowls, and they get crap games, especially late in the season

Fox is paying $1.1bil for 2 games/week, plus playoffs, plus Super Bowl, and they aren't worried about cord-cutters

Fox is available over the air so cord cutters don't matter as much, they still take a hit but not as big as ESPN. And they don't get as much per subscriber as ESPN either.

Don't forget ESPN got the draft as part of their deal (which is becoming a pretty big thing)and they have the option of getting nfl playoff games added. You can also stream MNF from Watch ESPN which should help them with some of the cord cutters, provided the games get better.
Sure they overpaid but when you sign a long term deal that is always a risk. Ask the the Yankees about the A-Rod deal. Was he worth $250 million for 10 years or would they have made out better overpaying him even more at $30 million/year for 5 years?
If it looks like chicken, tastes like chicken, and feels like chicken but Chuck Norris says its beef, then it's beef.

If women had apostrophes instead of periods they would be even more possessive!

OJsDad

I think you can only get WatchESPN if you have an active TV subscription to ESPN. 
'Here at NASA we all pee the same color.'  Al Harrison from the movie Hidden Figures.

Marty Ward

Quote from: OJsDad on May 03, 2017, 02:28:28 PM
I think you can only get WatchESPN if you have an active TV subscription to ESPN.

You can get it on Sling TV. Not sure about Hulu and others.
If it looks like chicken, tastes like chicken, and feels like chicken but Chuck Norris says its beef, then it's beef.

If women had apostrophes instead of periods they would be even more possessive!

Marty Ward

Most of their programming is not available simply by having a streaming provider, you need cable/satellite, but it look like they make an exception with MNF.

"Yes, Monday Night Football will be available to subscribers, via authentication, on WatchESPN.com, WatchESPN on Apple TV, Google Chromecast, Amazon Fire TV, Roku, Xbox One, PlayStation®4, Windows 8, iPads and Android tablets, but NOT on phones at this time."

http://support.espn.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/Will-Monday-Night-Football-be-available-on-WatchESPN?section=WatchESPN
If it looks like chicken, tastes like chicken, and feels like chicken but Chuck Norris says its beef, then it's beef.

If women had apostrophes instead of periods they would be even more possessive!

mirth

Quality of the games is going to be key for ESPN and the NFL. MNF has mostly had garbage games the past couple seasons. And easily half to two-thirds of all NFL games in a given week are basically unwatchable. The league can fiddle around with the rules all they want, but the product on the field needs to improve.
"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus

OJsDad

Quote from: Marty Ward on May 03, 2017, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: OJsDad on May 03, 2017, 02:28:28 PM
I think you can only get WatchESPN if you have an active TV subscription to ESPN.

You can get it on Sling TV. Not sure about Hulu and others.

Sling is a paid TV subscription.  The difference is that it's streamed and not delivered with satellite or cable. 
'Here at NASA we all pee the same color.'  Al Harrison from the movie Hidden Figures.

Marty Ward

Quote from: mirth on May 03, 2017, 02:56:52 PM
Quality of the games is going to be key for ESPN and the NFL. MNF has mostly had garbage games the past couple seasons. And easily half to two-thirds of all NFL games in a given week are basically unwatchable. The league can fiddle around with the rules all they want, but the product on the field needs to improve.

You got that right. I'll watch the Ravens play the Browns because I like the Ravens. I doubt many other would want that as the MNF game.
If it looks like chicken, tastes like chicken, and feels like chicken but Chuck Norris says its beef, then it's beef.

If women had apostrophes instead of periods they would be even more possessive!

Marty Ward

Quote from: OJsDad on May 03, 2017, 02:59:39 PM
Quote from: Marty Ward on May 03, 2017, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: OJsDad on May 03, 2017, 02:28:28 PM
I think you can only get WatchESPN if you have an active TV subscription to ESPN.

You can get it on Sling TV. Not sure about Hulu and others.

Sling is a paid TV subscription.  The difference is that it's streamed and not delivered with satellite or cable.

And that is where a lot of cord cutters are going to. People who cut cords don't necessarily stop watching TV, they just watch it a different way. ESPN doesn't let cord cutters watch everything on Watch ESPN but they do let them watch MNF.
If it looks like chicken, tastes like chicken, and feels like chicken but Chuck Norris says its beef, then it's beef.

If women had apostrophes instead of periods they would be even more possessive!