(07-16-2013 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 07:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN really pushed a variety of unqualified personalities on us across the spectrum of their broadcasts and nothing is more off putting than to have many of these individuals trying to create news rather than reporting it, reporting it with obvious lack of understanding of the nuances of the games they are covering, and then politicizing the danged sports.

Nothing has offended me more than their push of who we are to reflect upon for the Heisman before the season is even a month away. I just wish they would show me the sports, give me the play by play, and then shut up and show me the scores on the ticker and the highlights on the tube. It really isn't that hard to do. And, I'm sick of talking heads over-talking one another on phony sports shows arguing points that nobody cares about.

I go to sports to get away from the View, Political Debate Shows, and Bloomberg's Self Promoting Discussions about Business. I watch sports because someone wins and someone loses and then it's over. I don't tune in to listen to two people I don't care about arguing about the game I just watched and telling me what to think about it. I can't think of anything more insulting for a broadcast team, or analysts to do. If ESPN is declining it is because of these things, not the games they put on, or even their competition, .....yet.

I agree with a lot of these viewpoints from a personal standpoint. However, the ESPN ratings decline has a pretty straightforward explanation: they only had 2 NBA playoff games involving either the Lakers or Heat this year and a 4-game sweep in the Western Conference Finals featuring small markets, whereas it had around 11 Heat or Lakers playoff games last year along with a 7-game Eastern Conference Finals between the Heat and Celtics that drove the network to record ratings. Those NBA games were among the highest rated programs on ESPN of the year outside of NFL Football and the college football National Championship Game and Rose Bowl, so the lower wattage NBA games this year had a huge impact on the quarterly ratings (effectively having 10% of their evenings in the quarter switching from top tier ratings to filler compared to last year). Note that TNT, which got the benefit of a great 7-game Eastern Conference Finals featuring the Heat this year, received boffo ratings. NBC Sports Network effectively had the NHL equivalent this year of what ESPN had with the NBA last year, which was having large market teams in Chicago and Boston getting all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals, so that's the reason for their rise. The bottom line is that sexy matchups with marquee teams will draw viewers regardless of the quality of the announcers or pundits (whereas the best announcers in the world won't draw flies to a bad matchup).

Unfortunately, the ratings actually continue to show that we're a very vocal minority in terms of complaining about ESPN's pundit shows, as those have drawn much better audiences than the higher quality shows like Outside the Lines. To put the total day viewership numbers into perspective, ESPN still has more daily viewers than every other sports network combined.

I wouldn't know, Frank. I haven't watched a single NBA game for one minute since 1985 and I rarely watch any ESPN content, except during/for an actual Notre Dame football or basketball game.

I just don't like the whole ESPN universe and the sports culture it creates/influences.

All of ESPN's "pundits", talk show hosts, Sportscenter, etc...could disappear overnight forever and I it would not bother me one bit.

If it collapsed into bankruptcy and no entity ever moved into the sports broadcast vacuum that created, I wouldn't mind.

In that universe, I would subscribe to und.com and/or whatever digital, pay network ND came up with for ND basketball games not shown on an OTA network.

Give me ABC and NBC OTA for ND football games, let me continue to subscribe and pay for MLB.com for Pirates games and Sunday Ticket for Steelers games and the rest of the sports broadcast industry could collapse and burn for all I care.

Even if my costs went way up, I would not mind if it meant the demise of ESPN.

I understand the sentiment, although that's an inward-looking point of view ("I only like what I like and everything else can cease to exist"). However, your own alma mater is a direct beneficiary of the "ESPN culture" in the sense that Notre Dame is popular and people want to talk about them (good or bad), which in turn allows ND to have its own NBC contract that no one else has (and they are able to keep that contract, whether they're good or bad). ESPN and every other network simply wants to broadcast what draws ratings, and Notre Dame fits into that mold. That's the main reason why Notre Dame is still powerful today: it's not on-the-field results, but rather that they're on that short list of easy ESPN topics like whatever is happening with the Cowboys, Yankees, Lakers and LeBron. So, from your own personal point of view, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing at all for Notre Dame specifically if the ESPN culture goes away because that's actually what has kept the school relevant during the lean years. Without that ESPN culture, ND is just another "run of the mill" power team that people will only talk about when they're winning national championships (while their 6-6 seasons are ignored).

I disagree.

ND was "popular" long before ESPN even existed, even during lean periods when they weren't winning championships.

I think that ESPN wants to talk about ND because they are popular.

I don't think that ND is popular because ESPN wants to talk about them.

I don't think that ESPN had much relevance on NBC signing ND in 1991.

IF ESPN collapsed, I don't think it would have much impact on that contract.

If ND would become less popular if ESPN went off the air, well, that is just collateral damage. :)

I am not just "inward looking" about ND, but also about the other sports teams that I follow.

I was pretty content about sports telecasts prior to the existence of ESPN.

I would likewise be content if magically ESPN went away.

I would read newspapers and subscribe to ND websites for information about that team.

The same with the Pirates and the Steelers.

To me, ESPN is a fairly new thing in the sports world. I got along just fine before it came on the scene.

I am perfectly willing to use OTA and subscription or pay for view services to view the teams I like.

I am a fan of the teams I follow, not the sport in general.

I have no interest in other games or other teams.

I don't care to hear about Lebron or Manziel or Tebow or the Cowboys or Alabama or Puig.

Likewise, I am sure that other fans don't want to hear about Everett Golson or Brian Kelly.

There, I got my old curmudgeon rant out of the way. :)

(07-16-2013 12:11 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 10:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 07:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN really pushed a variety of unqualified personalities on us across the spectrum of their broadcasts and nothing is more off putting than to have many of these individuals trying to create news rather than reporting it, reporting it with obvious lack of understanding of the nuances of the games they are covering, and then politicizing the danged sports.

Nothing has offended me more than their push of who we are to reflect upon for the Heisman before the season is even a month away. I just wish they would show me the sports, give me the play by play, and then shut up and show me the scores on the ticker and the highlights on the tube. It really isn't that hard to do. And, I'm sick of talking heads over-talking one another on phony sports shows arguing points that nobody cares about.

I go to sports to get away from the View, Political Debate Shows, and Bloomberg's Self Promoting Discussions about Business. I watch sports because someone wins and someone loses and then it's over. I don't tune in to listen to two people I don't care about arguing about the game I just watched and telling me what to think about it. I can't think of anything more insulting for a broadcast team, or analysts to do. If ESPN is declining it is because of these things, not the games they put on, or even their competition, .....yet.

I agree with a lot of these viewpoints from a personal standpoint. However, the ESPN ratings decline has a pretty straightforward explanation: they only had 2 NBA playoff games involving either the Lakers or Heat this year and a 4-game sweep in the Western Conference Finals featuring small markets, whereas it had around 11 Heat or Lakers playoff games last year along with a 7-game Eastern Conference Finals between the Heat and Celtics that drove the network to record ratings. Those NBA games were among the highest rated programs on ESPN of the year outside of NFL Football and the college football National Championship Game and Rose Bowl, so the lower wattage NBA games this year had a huge impact on the quarterly ratings (effectively having 10% of their evenings in the quarter switching from top tier ratings to filler compared to last year). Note that TNT, which got the benefit of a great 7-game Eastern Conference Finals featuring the Heat this year, received boffo ratings. NBC Sports Network effectively had the NHL equivalent this year of what ESPN had with the NBA last year, which was having large market teams in Chicago and Boston getting all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals, so that's the reason for their rise. The bottom line is that sexy matchups with marquee teams will draw viewers regardless of the quality of the announcers or pundits (whereas the best announcers in the world won't draw flies to a bad matchup).

Unfortunately, the ratings actually continue to show that we're a very vocal minority in terms of complaining about ESPN's pundit shows, as those have drawn much better audiences than the higher quality shows like Outside the Lines. To put the total day viewership numbers into perspective, ESPN still has more daily viewers than every other sports network combined.

I wouldn't know, Frank. I haven't watched a single NBA game for one minute since 1985 and I rarely watch any ESPN content, except during/for an actual Notre Dame football or basketball game.

I just don't like the whole ESPN universe and the sports culture it creates/influences.

All of ESPN's "pundits", talk show hosts, Sportscenter, etc...could disappear overnight forever and I it would not bother me one bit.

If it collapsed into bankruptcy and no entity ever moved into the sports broadcast vacuum that created, I wouldn't mind.

In that universe, I would subscribe to und.com and/or whatever digital, pay network ND came up with for ND basketball games not shown on an OTA network.

Give me ABC and NBC OTA for ND football games, let me continue to subscribe and pay for MLB.com for Pirates games and Sunday Ticket for Steelers games and the rest of the sports broadcast industry could collapse and burn for all I care.

Even if my costs went way up, I would not mind if it meant the demise of ESPN.

I understand the sentiment, although that's an inward-looking point of view ("I only like what I like and everything else can cease to exist"). However, your own alma mater is a direct beneficiary of the "ESPN culture" in the sense that Notre Dame is popular and people want to talk about them (good or bad), which in turn allows ND to have its own NBC contract that no one else has (and they are able to keep that contract, whether they're good or bad). ESPN and every other network simply wants to broadcast what draws ratings, and Notre Dame fits into that mold. That's the main reason why Notre Dame is still powerful today: it's not on-the-field results, but rather that they're on that short list of easy ESPN topics like whatever is happening with the Cowboys, Yankees, Lakers and LeBron. So, from your own personal point of view, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing at all for Notre Dame specifically if the ESPN culture goes away because that's actually what has kept the school relevant during the lean years. Without that ESPN culture, ND is just another "run of the mill" power team that people will only talk about when they're winning national championships (while their 6-6 seasons are ignored).

(07-16-2013 10:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Question for those who don't like ESPN: [b]What else would you have them put on the air at say 2 pm? Yes these "talking head shows" do suck, but they can't just go offline when sportscenter or live games aren't on. Something has to fill the gap.[/b]

ESPN is far from perfect but they cover sports, especially college sports, much more than anyone did before and for that I am grateful.

Why not go offline?

How about dead air or a test pattern if they don't have a live game or Sportscenter to televise?

I grew up in an era before 24/7 sports coverage.

Networks used to sign off the air late at night because they had run out of stuff to televise.

Why does there have to be "filler" or "content" all day long?

Absolutely Terry! They could switch to that preset high definition picture of an exotic or remote location that we had the first year or two of high definition sets & signals and then pipe in your choice of the music channels if you need audio. I could go to sleep to that!

As if Fox Sports 1 and 2 won't have talking head shows. They'll follow ESPN's model just like every other sports channel does.

(07-16-2013 12:39 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  As if Fox Sports 1 and 2 won't have talking head shows. They'll follow ESPN's model just like every other sports channel does.

True, but they'll have hotter blondes even if you don't agree with their opinions.

(07-16-2013 12:39 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  As if Fox Sports 1 and 2 won't have talking head shows. They'll follow ESPN's model just like every other sports channel does.

It's not the talking head shows, but how they operate. Do they stay on topic or do they follow the TMZ route? If they keep it light and stick to sports that will be a breathe of fresh air.

Terry, what time do you go to bed? We'll just shut everything down a half hour after that. haha

Some of us work later hours and only get to watch tv after midnight.

When I was a teen and young adult I knew that I was going to see Arkansas State football and basketball on the ABC affiliate in Jonesboro several times. I would get to see usually 2-3 football games and 5-8 basketball games. Sometimes one of the football games would be picked up either by the ABC or NBC affiliate in Little Rock, and generally 3-5 basketball games would be picked up in Little Rock. All would be on Saturday.

Now those stations are owned by big national conglomerates and multiple channels dedicated to sports exist.

What will I get this year?
Football
1 ESPN2 game (Tuesday)
1 ESPNU game (Thursday)
1 Fox something (Saturday) under the SEC contract.
1 TBD under the SEC contract
1 Comcast Sports SE / Cox Sports.

That last game won't be available to anyone on ATT Uverse, Dish, Direct, and a number of cable providers in Arkansas.

Basketball
TBD but maybe one ESPN/ESPN2 and 1 or two CSS/CST

In short the viewers within the reasonable ticket buying radius of campus have less access to the product than they had 25-30 years ago. More people TOTAL can see those games but other than players you want to recruit or someone you maybe possibly might buy a shirt or a hat, or if its a really good season, a potential poll voter, the bulk of those viewers are worthless and two of those games will be hard on gate receipts because we rely on a lot of people driving more than a hour to arrive at a game, difficult for an early evening game on a weeknight.

Back 25-30 years ago the ABC affiliate carried two games. An early Raycom telecast followed by a single ABC regional or national game. There was a window available to be on local broadcast TV and it rarely had any broadcast competition.

(07-16-2013 12:55 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Terry, what time do you go to bed? We'll just shut everything down a half hour after that. haha

Some of us work later hours and only get to watch tv after midnight.

About midnight.

Yes, I am a stubborn old bastard. :)

Yes, I know that I am in a distinct minority here.

Yes, I know that none of what I hope would happen will happen.

I am getting off my anti-ESPN soapbox (finally, right?)......for now.

(07-15-2013 09:53 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  "ESPN averaged 1.3 million viewers in primetime during Q2, down 32% from the same period last year and the lowest primetime audience for the net in at least seven years. The 32% drop was the biggest decline among cable sports networks."

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/I...rship.aspx

ESPN might have their work cut out for them with NBC Sports and now Fox Sports1 on the rise.

BTW, how does the Speed Channel get such good ratings already and it is not even FS1 yet? Im also surprised how bad ESPNU is.

.

Lots of NASCAR fans...

(07-16-2013 10:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  ESPN is far from perfect but they cover sports, especially college sports, much more than anyone did before and for that I am grateful.

ESPN is kind of like Starbucks. Before Starbucks, no one would have believed that so many people would pay $4 for a coffee drink. The local, independent coffee places that now exist in most places are there because that price point has been established; otherwise the local places would still be serving only Maxwell House and donuts like they did 30 years ago.

ESPN showed that there's a huge market for live sports that goes far beyond a "game of the week" and playoffs. Remember when that's all we had on the tube? I still remember when the NBA finals were shown on tape delay after the 11 pm newscast.

So, yeah, I could do without talking heads like Skippy Bayless and Woody Plaige, but I'm happy we have so many live-sports options that we didn't have before ESPN.

(07-16-2013 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 12:39 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  As if Fox Sports 1 and 2 won't have talking head shows. They'll follow ESPN's model just like every other sports channel does.

True, but they'll have hotter blondes even if you don't agree with their opinions.

And the conservatives on here who watch FoxNews know that very well.
(Be advised this comment is in no way supported or sponsored by Chris Matthews or MSNBC.)

(07-16-2013 01:13 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 09:53 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  TW, how does the Speed Channel get such good ratings already and it is not even FS1 yet? Im also surprised how bad ESPNU is.
.

Lots of NASCAR fans...

I'd figure there's the assumption is that quite a few Speed channel announcers are going to be used in the other sports broadcasts, so I figure a few people are trying to figure out how good some of those announcers are?

They might be good race announcers, for example: I love the guys who do the motorcycle racing gigs.. but no way can I see them doing other sports.

(07-16-2013 10:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Question for those who don't like ESPN: What else would you have them put on the air at say 2 pm? Yes these "talking head shows" do suck, but they can't just go offline when sportscenter or live games aren't on. Something has to fill the gap.

Go back to their roots:

Australian Rules Football
Canadian Football League
Lumberjack events
Dodgeball (my bad, that was on ESPN8, "The Ocho")
Wrestling
USFL Game of the Week
Slow Pitch Softball
Rugby
Sailing

(07-16-2013 01:37 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 10:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Question for those who don't like ESPN: What else would you have them put on the air at say 2 pm? Yes these "talking head shows" do suck, but they can't just go offline when sportscenter or live games aren't on. Something has to fill the gap.

Go back to their roots:

Australian Rules Football
Canadian Football League
Lumberjack events
Dodgeball (my bad, that was on ESPN8, "The Ocho")
Wrestling
USFL Game of the Week
Slow Pitch Softball
Rugby
Sailing

Good points...and choices. I remember ESPN airing Aussie Football during the big NFL strike back in the 80's. CFL is good quality football too. ESPN really needs to let the Poker Tourneys go though. Hard to make that a sport.

My problem with ESPN is that every time I want watch or read about sports I find something I would expect to find on TMZ like "Shaq says" "So and so gets dui" "Walk on player at Idaho gets caught smoking weed" "McMurphy freaking hates this conference so he is going to push an agenda against them".

Matter fact this is on the front page right now "Kidd pleads guilty in DWI case from 2012" I mean I understand how stuff like this has an impact on sports but seriously ESPN? Let TMZ handle drama and stick to sports.

Don't get me started on the increase of female sports reporters. I like boobs as much as the next guy but I will take two literate former players who know the game over someone who got the job because she has a pretty smile and can google search.

(07-16-2013 06:12 AM)lofi Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN really pushed a variety of unqualified personalities on us across the spectrum of their broadcasts and nothing is more off putting than to have many of these individuals trying to create news rather than reporting it, reporting it with obvious lack of understanding of the nuances of the games they are covering, and then politicizing the danged sports.

Nothing has offended me more than their push of who we are to reflect upon for the Heisman before the season is even a month away. I just wish they would show me the sports, give me the play by play, and then shut up and show me the scores on the ticker and the highlights on the tube. It really isn't that hard to do. And, I'm sick of talking heads over-talking one another on phony sports shows arguing points that nobody cares about.

I go to sports to get away from the View, Political Debate Shows, and Bloomberg's Self Promoting Discussions about Business. I watch sports because someone wins and someone loses and then it's over. I don't tune in to listen to two people I don't care about arguing about the game I just watched and telling me what to think about it. I can't think of anything more insulting for a broadcast team, or analysts to do. If ESPN is declining it is because of these things, not the games they put on, or even their competition, .....yet.

I agree with a lot of these viewpoints from a personal standpoint. However, the ESPN ratings decline has a pretty straightforward explanation: they only had 2 NBA playoff games involving either the Lakers or Heat this year and a 4-game sweep in the Western Conference Finals featuring small markets, whereas it had around 11 Heat or Lakers playoff games last year along with a 7-game Eastern Conference Finals between the Heat and Celtics that drove the network to record ratings. Those NBA games were among the highest rated programs on ESPN of the year outside of NFL Football and the college football National Championship Game and Rose Bowl, so the lower wattage NBA games this year had a huge impact on the quarterly ratings (effectively having 10% of their evenings in the quarter switching from top tier ratings to filler compared to last year). Note that TNT, which got the benefit of a great 7-game Eastern Conference Finals featuring the Heat this year, received boffo ratings. NBC Sports Network effectively had the NHL equivalent this year of what ESPN had with the NBA last year, which was having large market teams in Chicago and Boston getting all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals, so that's the reason for their rise. The bottom line is that sexy matchups with marquee teams will draw viewers regardless of the quality of the announcers or pundits (whereas the best announcers in the world won't draw flies to a bad matchup).

Unfortunately, the ratings actually continue to show that we're a very vocal minority in terms of complaining about ESPN's pundit shows, as those have drawn much better audiences than the higher quality shows like Outside the Lines. To put the total day viewership numbers into perspective, ESPN still has more daily viewers than every other sports network combined.

I understand the facts Frank, but I've been waiting a long time to register one old man's dislike for the direction of sports broadcasting. I know I'm a statistical aberration but I am glad that I lived in the age of Curt Gowdy and Pee Wee Reese, Howard Cosell and Dandy Don Meredith, John Madden who was a breath of fresh air when he retired from coaching, and in the early days of ESPN Bob Ley.

I choose to believe that if I am in the minority on this with you then that is further proof that "Idiocracy" has come to fruition.

Plus 1 from me.
It seems like the new talent that ESPN is putting forth these days is VERY lacking.
I miss the old guys (and gals).

Where did Erin Andrews leave ESPN to go? Oh that's right... FOX SPORTS CFB. Continuing with the blonde theme...lol
Seriously, Dan Patrick was their biggest loss in my opinion.

(07-15-2013 11:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN really pushed a variety of unqualified personalities on us across the spectrum of their broadcasts and nothing is more off putting than to have many of these individuals trying to create news rather than reporting it, reporting it with obvious lack of understanding of the nuances of the games they are covering, and then politicizing the danged sports.

Nothing has offended me more than their push of who we are to reflect upon for the Heisman before the season is even a month away. I just wish they would show me the sports, give me the play by play, and then shut up and show me the scores on the ticker and the highlights on the tube. It really isn't that hard to do. And, I'm sick of talking heads over-talking one another on phony sports shows arguing points that nobody cares about.

I go to sports to get away from the View, Political Debate Shows, and Bloomberg's Self Promoting Discussions about Business. I watch sports because someone wins and someone loses and then it's over. I don't tune in to listen to two people I don't care about arguing about the game I just watched and telling me what to think about it. I can't think of anything more insulting for a broadcast team, or analysts to do. If ESPN is declining it is because of these things, not the games they put on, or even their competition, .....yet.

I agree with a lot of these viewpoints from a personal standpoint. However, the ESPN ratings decline has a pretty straightforward explanation: they only had 2 NBA playoff games involving either the Lakers or Heat this year and a 4-game sweep in the Western Conference Finals featuring small markets, whereas it had around 11 Heat or Lakers playoff games last year along with a 7-game Eastern Conference Finals between the Heat and Celtics that drove the network to record ratings. Those NBA games were among the highest rated programs on ESPN of the year outside of NFL Football and the college football National Championship Game and Rose Bowl, so the lower wattage NBA games this year had a huge impact on the quarterly ratings (effectively having 10% of their evenings in the quarter switching from top tier ratings to filler compared to last year). Note that TNT, which got the benefit of a great 7-game Eastern Conference Finals featuring the Heat this year, received boffo ratings. NBC Sports Network effectively had the NHL equivalent this year of what ESPN had with the NBA last year, which was having large market teams in Chicago and Boston getting all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals, so that's the reason for their rise. The bottom line is that sexy matchups with marquee teams will draw viewers regardless of the quality of the announcers or pundits (whereas the best announcers in the world won't draw flies to a bad matchup).

Unfortunately, the ratings actually continue to show that we're a very vocal minority in terms of complaining about ESPN's pundit shows, as those have drawn much better audiences than the higher quality shows like Outside the Lines. To put the total day viewership numbers into perspective, ESPN still has more daily viewers than every other sports network combined.

I understand the facts Frank, but I've been waiting a long time to register one old man's dislike for the direction of sports broadcasting. I know I'm a statistical aberration but I am glad that I lived in the age of Curt Gowdy and Pee Wee Reese, Howard Cosell and Dandy Don Meredith, John Madden who was a breath of fresh air when he retired from coaching, and in the early days of ESPN Bob Ley.

I choose to believe that if I am in the minority on this with you then that is further proof that "Idiocracy" has come to fruition.

I agree with you 100%.

If you don't have enough sports to fill your 24 hours on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN3 and ESPN Classic (if that's still around), then you have too many channels.

(07-16-2013 12:11 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 10:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Question for those who don't like ESPN: [b]What else would you have them put on the air at say 2 pm? Yes these "talking head shows" do suck, but they can't just go offline when sportscenter or live games aren't on. Something has to fill the gap.[/b]

ESPN is far from perfect but they cover sports, especially college sports, much more than anyone did before and for that I am grateful.

Why not go offline?

How about dead air or a test pattern if they don't have a live game or Sportscenter to televise?

I grew up in an era before 24/7 sports coverage.

Networks used to sign off the air late at night because they had run out of stuff to televise.

Why does there have to be "filler" or "content" all day long?

I get that some people don't like it, but I'd rather watch something than nothing.

The worst ESPN programming is still better than 90% of channels. Other than TBS reruns or Fx and TNT movies I hardly watch TV anyway.

Obviously it gets rating or it wouldn't be on the air. I get that you dont like it - I don't really like it much either - but I still watch in sometimes when I have the day off.

(07-16-2013 01:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 10:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  ESPN is far from perfect but they cover sports, especially college sports, much more than anyone did before and for that I am grateful.

ESPN is kind of like Starbucks. Before Starbucks, no one would have believed that so many people would pay $4 for a coffee drink. The local, independent coffee places that now exist in most places are there because that price point has been established; otherwise the local places would still be serving only Maxwell House and donuts like they did 30 years ago.

ESPN showed that there's a huge market for live sports that goes far beyond a "game of the week" and playoffs. Remember when that's all we had on the tube? I still remember when the NBA finals were shown on tape delay after the 11 pm newscast.

So, yeah, I could do without talking heads like Skippy Bayless and Woody Plaige, but I'm happy we have so many live-sports options that we didn't have before ESPN.

I guess that's what it comes down to for me too. Options. I'd rather have the current setup where 50% of programming sucks than go back to the model from the 60s where we get one or two games a week and thats it.

It's over-saturation to be sure, but at least this way everyone can more or less get what they want.