(05-02-2016 08:58 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 12:03 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  ESPN doesn't have much free capital to throw around right now. They overspent. They are going to have to cutback.....they have no other choice unless they want to go bankrupt. They are going to lose some big names from an employee side and also what they can broadcast for content.

Translation = they reached their peak and will have to level off.

That doesn't mean that at all. I agree that ESPN has over spent and are trying to get their house in order. Losing over priced Big 10 rights will save them money. Cutting loose over priced talking heads. Will save them money. But this is money that they can use to reinvest in other areas and other talent.

You don't let your best employees walk out the door if you can afford them.

ESPN doesn't have the money right now. CONFIRMED by the folks at the sports journalism journal.

(05-02-2016 02:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It may be inclusive than I originally thought, but it is STILL a lot of people. And this is none of the behind the scenes people, of which they probably have 100 or so producers, tech people, etc.

ESPN in just its HQ in Bristol, CT alone has 3,900 full-time employees (down from 4,200 last year).

ESPN has almost another 2,600 employees located elsewhere.

(05-02-2016 03:49 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 02:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

If there are two games on that I have no vested interest in, the network and/or announces do influence which ones I tune into it. Network due to sound quality (some networks are better than others in terms of properly mic'ing the field). Also the announcers themselves, indicate which "level" the game is, and the number of camera angles, etc.


Watch a game on SEC Network, Big Ten Network, or ESPN News, vs. ESPN or CBS and you can see the difference.

I have never seen a game on the first three you list, so you may be right.

When I watch a game, it is to see the teams, not listen/see the announcers, though.

While I agree with Ad that you can see and hear a difference in announcer quality and production values between say a BTN or SECN game and an ESPN or CBS game, I'm like you: doesn't matter to me, all that matters is who the teams are.

Well one exception: I've gotten so used to HD that it is tough for me to watch a game on a non-HD channel. I think there is still one channel, maybe it is Fox Sports 2 or something, or maybe the WB, on COX that shows games on a non-HD channel. I have to really care about a game to watch it that way.

(05-03-2016 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 03:49 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 02:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

If there are two games on that I have no vested interest in, the network and/or announces do influence which ones I tune into it. Network due to sound quality (some networks are better than others in terms of properly mic'ing the field). Also the announcers themselves, indicate which "level" the game is, and the number of camera angles, etc.


Watch a game on SEC Network, Big Ten Network, or ESPN News, vs. ESPN or CBS and you can see the difference.

I have never seen a game on the first three you list, so you may be right.

When I watch a game, it is to see the teams, not listen/see the announcers, though.

While I agree with Ad that you can see and hear a difference in announcer quality and production values between say a BTN or SECN game and an ESPN or CBS game, I'm like you: doesn't matter to me, all that matters is who the teams are.

Well one exception: I've gotten so used to HD that it is tough for me to watch a game on a non-HD channel. I think there is still one channel, maybe it is Fox Sports 2 or something, or maybe the WB, on COX that shows games on a non-HD channel. I have to really care about a game to watch it that way.

Agreed. I am HD spoiled. I can't watch any program that is non-HD.

Fox is going have to hire some more people, correct?

(05-02-2016 08:23 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 04:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  That NBA contract is already putting a hurt on ESPN

The NBA is ESPN's third best property behind Monday Night Football, College Football Playoff.

Can it repay ESPN's 1.7 billion dollar investment? I'm not seeing the ratings to justify that

(05-02-2016 10:51 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:58 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 12:03 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  ESPN doesn't have much free capital to throw around right now. They overspent. They are going to have to cutback.....they have no other choice unless they want to go bankrupt. They are going to lose some big names from an employee side and also what they can broadcast for content.

Translation = they reached their peak and will have to level off.

That doesn't mean that at all. I agree that ESPN has over spent and are trying to get their house in order. Losing over priced Big 10 rights will save them money. Cutting loose over priced talking heads. Will save them money. But this is money that they can use to reinvest in other areas and other talent.

You don't let your best employees walk out the door if you can afford them.

ESPN doesn't have the money right now. CONFIRMED by the folks at the sports journalism journal.

Those that are walking out the door aren't ESPNs best employees.

You can't get rid of the NBA. The Finals ratings will be enormous. You need spring programming.

Fox should clean up with the US Open and Copa America. NBC has also taken the Ryder Cup and the Open Championship. ESPN has declining Tennis for summer ratings.

Without NBA, ESPN has nothing for the entire spring/summer (oh yeah, Little League, and Omaha baseball). What Fox and NBC have done is at least competitively price these packages, and that's a good thing.

(05-03-2016 04:02 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:23 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 04:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  That NBA contract is already putting a hurt on ESPN

The NBA is ESPN's third best property behind Monday Night Football, College Football Playoff.

Can it repay ESPN's 1.7 billion dollar investment? I'm not seeing the ratings to justify that

NBA gets better ratings than college football does on ESPN. Better demographics in the NBA as well.

(05-02-2016 09:38 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 01:51 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  As a big investor in Disney, where is this network going? Can anyone give me some insights? I am glad they are cutting costs with some of these overpaid commentators. There isn't enough NFL and college content to support all these guys, but who will be replacing these guys? Nessler is a good play by play guy. Will ratings suffer if they can't get a viable replacement for the games he calls?

Musberger is also getting old. They need a solid play by play guy besides Fowler.

I think the NBA ratings will be solid this year, but I'm worried about them overpaying for college content, as well as the NFL personalities.

Honest question. Does anyone tune into a game because of any announcer?

Do announcers affect ratings in any manner? If so, then I am surprised again.

For instance, would less people tune into Alabama v. LSU if Pat Haden were the color guy?

I think the last announcer who had that kind of pull (for positive & negative reasons) was Howard Cosell. But I may be dating myself here...

I think John Madden absolutely fits in that category, sans he last 4-5 years of his run. In the late 80's and 90's he by himself literally was a TV draw for football games, because people who didn't really know football could understand it because of how he broke the games down.

Well we know Nessler and Dilfer aren't on that level, but besides Herbstreit and Fowler, the college broadcasts have been pretty terrible. Why can't they get decent play by play guys in there? Guess it's harder than it looks (or sounds), as anyone who's ever tried to call a game from their sofa (when nobody else is in the room) can attest to.

I did two games in college. It was not easy. I called two each of basketball games, football gnaws, and wrestling matches, and they were not easy (project stuff: wasn't on tv).