Disney earnings out last night. ESPN continues to lose subscribers though the exact number for the quarter wasn't made specifically. ESPN has lost approximately 9 million subscribers in the past three years and over 10 million since it's peak of 100 million.

Iger also indicated there would be some sort of stand alone service launched in 2017.

I'm sure Sportscenter 6 will save the company.

I can't wait for ESPN 8 - The Ocho, that's when I'll subscribe again.

i heard their earnings are down 11% since the start of 2017.

Thats what they get for getting into politics and only catering to the P5.

(02-08-2017 12:43 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Thats what they get for getting into politics and only catering to the P5.

Wrong.

ESPN is most likely doing better with the political guys than guys like Skip, and the Herd thus why they let them walk. Go look a Skips ratings on FS1(hot garbage) it proves sports talking heads do not draw anyone or push people away. ESPN can take 4 people from this forum and put us on Around the Horn and we can fight over "Did the Pats win or Did the Falcons lose?" and the viewership will not change.
As someone who listens to Lebatard everyday I enjoy fun and sometimes deeper conversation sports talk over "Are the Raiders for real" or " is so and so the "Goat" where they just line up gas bag failed coaches and they just fart out hot takes all day.

ESPN is only hurting because people who realize they do not care about sports that much can have quality TV without cable.
My cable bill is a lot more because of the sports package I watch but I sometimes think I get all that sports and I only do it to watch my teams and maybe a couple other games like why am I paying an extra 30 bucks a month for a soccer channel and the SEC/Big10 network?

(02-08-2017 01:18 PM)owlcountry40 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:43 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Thats what they get for getting into politics and only catering to the P5.

Wrong.

ESPN is most likely doing better with the political guys than guys like Skip, and the Herd thus why they let them walk. Go look a Skips ratings on FS1(hot garbage) it proves sports talking heads do not draw anyone or push people away. ESPN can take 4 people from this forum and put us on Around the Horn and we can fight over "Did the Pats win or Did the Falcons lose?" and the viewership will not change.
As someone who listens to Lebatard everyday I enjoy fun and sometimes deeper conversation sports talk over "Are the Raiders for real" or " is so and so the "Goat" where they just line up gas bag failed coaches and they just fart out hot takes all day.

ESPN is only hurting because people who realize they do not care about sports that much can have quality TV without cable.
My cable bill is a lot more because of the sports package I watch but I sometimes think I get all that sports and I only do it to watch my teams and maybe a couple other games like why am I paying an extra 30 bucks a month for a soccer channel and the SEC/Big10 network?

Its really not so much people deciding they don't need sports. It actually has little to do with sports. Its actually just folks realizing they can get alot of TV entertainment without subscribing to cable tv at all.

ESPN is part of almost every single basic cable package. That's why they had so many subscribers. So, any time ANYONE cuts the cable cord, ESPN loses a subscriber (whether they liked sports or not). That said, a lot of people who never gave a flip about sports were subscribers simply because ESPN was part of the most basic cable packages. So to that extent, you have a point. I also think some of this may be generational. I don't think Mellennials are nearly as interested in sports as baby boomers.

(02-08-2017 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 01:18 PM)owlcountry40 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:43 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Thats what they get for getting into politics and only catering to the P5.

Wrong.

ESPN is most likely doing better with the political guys than guys like Skip, and the Herd thus why they let them walk. Go look a Skips ratings on FS1(hot garbage) it proves sports talking heads do not draw anyone or push people away. ESPN can take 4 people from this forum and put us on Around the Horn and we can fight over "Did the Pats win or Did the Falcons lose?" and the viewership will not change.
As someone who listens to Lebatard everyday I enjoy fun and sometimes deeper conversation sports talk over "Are the Raiders for real" or " is so and so the "Goat" where they just line up gas bag failed coaches and they just fart out hot takes all day.

ESPN is only hurting because people who realize they do not care about sports that much can have quality TV without cable.
My cable bill is a lot more because of the sports package I watch but I sometimes think I get all that sports and I only do it to watch my teams and maybe a couple other games like why am I paying an extra 30 bucks a month for a soccer channel and the SEC/Big10 network?

Its really not so much people deciding they don't need sports. It actually has little to do with sports. Its actually just folks realizing they can get alot of TV entertainment without subscribing to cable tv at all.

ESPN is part of almost every single basic cable package. That's why they had so many subscribers. So, any time ANYONE cuts the cable cord, ESPN loses a subscriber (whether they liked sports or not). That said, a lot of people who never gave a flip about sports were subscribers simply because ESPN was part of the most basic cable packages. So to that extent, you have a point. I also think some of this may be generational. I don't think Mellennials are nearly as interested in sports as baby boomers.

You are right about Mellennials not caring about sports as much we have just so much other entertainment these days.
Also I feel my generation doesn't gamble as much as the baby boomers.
It's why Vegas has to push clubs and parties because no one my age is flying across the country to play craps like people did a generation ago. If people are not gambling people are less likely to throw on a random college basketball game on Tuesday if they don't have some coin on it.

Ugh. Love it when people lump an entire generation of people together.

I like sports and I like highlights. Unfortunately ESPN is dominated by neither. They show one or two games a night if we are lucky, they have MNF, and they have about 10 minutes of highlights (if that) every hour on sportscenter. It's become the TMZ of sports, something I am just not interested in. I can get my highlights pretty easily now from youtube and other areas of the internet - there's no reason for me to tune into ESPN now.

Michael Smith & that girl on prime time SC r awful. The days of Stuart Scott & SVP are over. ESPN is seriously going the wrong way. It's hard to watch

(02-08-2017 02:03 PM)odu09 Wrote:  Ugh. Love it when people lump an entire generation of people together.

I like sports and I like highlights. Unfortunately ESPN is dominated by neither. They show one or two games a night if we are lucky, they have MNF, and they have about 10 minutes of highlights (if that) every hour on sportscenter. It's become the TMZ of sports, something I am just not interested in. I can get my highlights pretty easily now from youtube and other areas of the internet - there's no reason for me to tune into ESPN now.

No, one is lumping ''everyone'' together but the truth is in the numbers.
Sports has to adjust to very different consumer than the baby boomers.
They also must do it at faster rate because technology grows faster and faster. Netflix was just mailing DVD's like 7 years ago and ESPN could not have even come close to seeing this coming.

ESPN has turned into MSESPN, I don't want to tune in and listen to liberals all day every day or see how left ESPN is leaning these days...Go watch or listen to Clay Travis about ESPN, he makes a lot of good points...

I am a die hard sports fan, and am on the verge of going Sling and dropping ESPN until college football cranks back up. Anything other than an actual game (and the occasional 30 for 30) is unwatchable to me. The political slant/P5 favoritism is just too much. I watch sports to get away from all that. I was thinking as I was researching my future programming decisions, if someone like me is dropping them then they really may be in trouble.

Disney's earnings were predominately from its Theme Parks, Movies and Disney Shanghai. ESPN has been a drag on earnings for multiple consecutive quarters. When that happens long enough the drag gets spun off into a new company. If that happens, ESPN will not have the big Disney dollars to fund all of those tv contracts.

The hard core sports fan just wants to enjoy the game. NO sports soap opera please.I guess the problem is they have to fill time and the tmz stuff is cheap filler.

Most people are just realizing they can stream their tv from Sling another other providers for cheaper.

(02-08-2017 03:22 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  The hard core sports fan just wants to enjoy the game. NO sports soap opera please.I guess the problem is they have to fill time and the tmz stuff is cheap filler.

CUSA games could be cheap filler. And better content.

30 for 30 is the only redeeming thing on ESPN. They lost touch with who they were a long time ago. Sportcenter used to be an hour of highlights and now it's 10 minutes of game film and 50 minutes of "What does LeBron think about global warming" and "What did Tom Brady eat for lunch". Just need to dump the wanna be talk show crap and show more sports.

(02-08-2017 03:03 PM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  ESPN has turned into MSESPN, I don't want to tune in and listen to liberals all day every day or see how left ESPN is leaning these days...Go watch or listen to Clay Travis about ESPN, he makes a lot of good points...

Good read: http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-p...eft-020817

(02-08-2017 01:51 PM)owlcountry40 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 01:18 PM)owlcountry40 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 12:43 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Thats what they get for getting into politics and only catering to the P5.

Wrong.

ESPN is most likely doing better with the political guys than guys like Skip, and the Herd thus why they let them walk. Go look a Skips ratings on FS1(hot garbage) it proves sports talking heads do not draw anyone or push people away. ESPN can take 4 people from this forum and put us on Around the Horn and we can fight over "Did the Pats win or Did the Falcons lose?" and the viewership will not change.
As someone who listens to Lebatard everyday I enjoy fun and sometimes deeper conversation sports talk over "Are the Raiders for real" or " is so and so the "Goat" where they just line up gas bag failed coaches and they just fart out hot takes all day.

ESPN is only hurting because people who realize they do not care about sports that much can have quality TV without cable.
My cable bill is a lot more because of the sports package I watch but I sometimes think I get all that sports and I only do it to watch my teams and maybe a couple other games like why am I paying an extra 30 bucks a month for a soccer channel and the SEC/Big10 network?

Its really not so much people deciding they don't need sports. It actually has little to do with sports. Its actually just folks realizing they can get alot of TV entertainment without subscribing to cable tv at all.

ESPN is part of almost every single basic cable package. That's why they had so many subscribers. So, any time ANYONE cuts the cable cord, ESPN loses a subscriber (whether they liked sports or not). That said, a lot of people who never gave a flip about sports were subscribers simply because ESPN was part of the most basic cable packages. So to that extent, you have a point. I also think some of this may be generational. I don't think Mellennials are nearly as interested in sports as baby boomers.

You are right about Mellennials not caring about sports as much we have just so much other entertainment these days.
Also I feel my generation doesn't gamble as much as the baby boomers.
It's why Vegas has to push clubs and parties because no one my age is flying across the country to play craps like people did a generation ago. If people are not gambling people are less likely to throw on a random college basketball game on Tuesday if they don't have some coin on it.

I think you're wrong about the baby boomers. While the baby boomers were probably more into sports than the Millennials are, IMO, my generation, Generation X was very much the sports fan generation. Generation X wasn't really big into gambling like the baby boomers were, IMO.

The P5 talk is targeting their majority audience. We know that it's about split even in number of P5 and G5 schools. However, the fanbases are night and day. Marshall has probably 100,000 fans that will attend and/or watch a game on TV. There are probably 10-15X that number that will attend or watch WVU. Now add in a conference game against Texas or Oklahoma vs say us playing WKU or USM. Now you got 3-4 million viewers vs maybe 200k. Why would ESPN ever mention that "other" game? There are at least 5-6 schools in any P5 conference that can bring those numbers. And the other schools' fans, in those conferences, will watch to keep up with their conference and occasionally they get in the conversation like UW this year.

I'm not advocating for ESPN. I never watch it, but I do own a sports bar and it's on most of the time. But if you think ESPN cares one iota about losing a few hundred thousand fans, when most are still going to be subscribers whether they watch or not, you're crazy. What they need to figure out is how to keep the P5 schools' fans interested. And almost exclusively discussing them is part of that equation, like it or not.

The first time P5 fans start complaining about ESPN because G5 schools get too much time on the network, you'll never see G5 schools mentioned again. Not so much the other way around.