(04-26-2017 12:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:06 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:00 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 10:50 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  They way overpaid the NFL.

MNF is their #1 property and best ratings.

Maybe...but you would have to do a what if. What if ESPN had allowed NBCSN OR Fox to have MNF, a package the NFL doesn't really place any emphasis on anymore.

ESPN's deals with cable and satellite companies, and the high per-subscriber rates that ESPN gets, are conditioned on ESPN having the NFL games. If they dropped the NFL games, the cable/satellite companies could renegotiate ESPN's rates way down.

If that renegotiation cost ESPN $3 per subscriber per month (which would still leave ESPN as the most expensive network for cable/satellite by far), that would cost ESPN $3 billion per year.

Well, ever since MNF left ABC, I have not watched a single night of it on ESPiN. Not one. I also hate the fact that the Rose Bowl is no longer on network TV. As a California treasure, that should never have been put on cable. Tournament House screwed up there IMO royally!

(04-27-2017 08:08 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-...-massacre/

ESPN cut the meat, not the fat.
4 points from the article:
"1) ESPN Overpaid for Broadcast Rights...
2) Cable Cord-Cutting
3) Declining ESPN Ratings
4) Politics..."

Author thinks the politics on ESPN were a conscious effort to get expand their base, getting people interested in politics in addition to sports junkies. However, they appear to have alienated half their base while doing liberal political media much worse than places like MSNBC.

Sports is an escape and ESPN seems to have forgotten that. Same way the strikes severely wounded major league baseball. Fans don't turn in to baseball to hear about multi-millionaires complaining about how they are treated by other multi-millionaires. There's no sympathy for either side.

This passage sums up why I have turned off ESPN permanently. I got sick and tired of trying to watch my sports with a political twist attached to it.

"You want to watch the Lakers game? Okay, but first you’re going to hear about Caitlyn Jenner. Want some NFL highlights? We’ll get to those eventually, but coming up next will be a discussion about how North Carolina is run by racist, homophobic bigots. You want to see the box scores of today’s baseball games? You can watch those at the bottom of the hour, but right now some D-list network talent would like to lecture you about gun control. After that we’ll have a panel discussion about how much courage it takes to turn your back on the American flag."

Yep. I hate espn for all the things that you mentioned. I made a thread about politics ruining espn a couple years back, Some ACC fans with a liberal bent to them tore me up. I want to bump that thread. I cut the chord and haven't watched it for awhile....

(04-27-2017 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-...-massacre/

ESPN cut the meat, not the fat.
4 points from the article:
"1) ESPN Overpaid for Broadcast Rights...
2) Cable Cord-Cutting
3) Declining ESPN Ratings
4) Politics..."

Author thinks the politics on ESPN were a conscious effort to get expand their base, getting people interested in politics in addition to sports junkies. However, they appear to have alienated half their base while doing liberal political media much worse than places like MSNBC.

Sports is an escape and ESPN seems to have forgotten that. Same way the strikes severely wounded major league baseball. Fans don't turn in to baseball to hear about multi-millionaires complaining about how they are treated by other multi-millionaires. There's no sympathy for either side.

You act like sports and politics have always been separate. Muhamad Ali, Tommie Smith and John Carlos disagree.

(04-27-2017 10:11 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-...-massacre/

ESPN cut the meat, not the fat.
4 points from the article:
"1) ESPN Overpaid for Broadcast Rights...
2) Cable Cord-Cutting
3) Declining ESPN Ratings
4) Politics..."

Author thinks the politics on ESPN were a conscious effort to get expand their base, getting people interested in politics in addition to sports junkies. However, they appear to have alienated half their base while doing liberal political media much worse than places like MSNBC.

Sports is an escape and ESPN seems to have forgotten that. Same way the strikes severely wounded major league baseball. Fans don't turn in to baseball to hear about multi-millionaires complaining about how they are treated by other multi-millionaires. There's no sympathy for either side.

You act like sports and politics have always been separate. Muhamad Ali, Tommie Smith and John Carlos disagree.

But that was the athlete themselves demonstrating, not a steady dose of it from the medium delivering the content.

Again, everyone has the freedom to express themselves how they like. I don't like politics and social justice mixed in to my sports, so I avoid ESPN and ABC whenever possible.

(04-27-2017 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-...-massacre/

ESPN cut the meat, not the fat.
4 points from the article:
"1) ESPN Overpaid for Broadcast Rights...
2) Cable Cord-Cutting
3) Declining ESPN Ratings
4) Politics..."

Author thinks the politics on ESPN were a conscious effort to get expand their base, getting people interested in politics in addition to sports junkies. However, they appear to have alienated half their base while doing liberal political media much worse than places like MSNBC.

Sports is an escape and ESPN seems to have forgotten that. Same way the strikes severely wounded major league baseball. Fans don't turn in to baseball to hear about multi-millionaires complaining about how they are treated by other multi-millionaires. There's no sympathy for either side.

That's just a red herring point of whining from a conservative political commentator in the same manner that we see red herring points of whining from liberal political commentators whenever they complain about sports "wrapping themselves in the flag" (e.g. the Colin Kaepernick storyline).

The reality is that the subset of people that claim to "never" watch ESPN supposedly because of politics are largely confined to message boards like this one and Twitter that are hardly representative of the general population. Also, they're generally all outright liars or at least overstating their claims. People can complain all they want about shows like First Take (and believe me, I completely hate everything about that show), but I really don't GAF what they say on that show since (a) it's on when I'm at work so I'm not watching it anyway and (b) it has absolutely no bearing on whether I watch a game on ESPN involving one of my favorite teams later on that evening. The vast majority of sports fans out there have my approach regardless of how much they might puff online. The "stick to sports" crowd is largely a message board/blog/Twitter phenomenon that ultimately goes away when their own teams are playing.

Case in point: the SEC T-shirt fan base is hardly a bastion of liberals, yet they watch ESPN more than ever because political viewpoints on the pundit shows are irrelevant when it comes to watching the ACTUAL GAMES. Does anyone actually think a material number of Alabama fans decided to not watch Crimson Tide games on ESPN because they gave an award to Caitlyn Jenner? Seriously?! The numbers certainly don't show that. Ultimately, a person saying that he won't watch a game on ESPN because he doesn't like the political viewpoints on a pundit show airing at entirely different time of the day makes about as much sense as saying that he won't watch a show that he otherwise likes on ABC prime time because he doesn't like the political viewpoints voiced on Good Morning America or the The View that he doesn't even watch. Now, I'm sure that there are a few people like that out there, but they're properly defined as psychopaths.

My beef with First Take and its ilk is that people on "hot take" shows are getting pay raises while real journalists like Andy Katz, Brett McMurphy and Jayson Stark are getting laid off. THAT is the problem here regardless of the underlying political viewpoints being stated.

(04-27-2017 10:19 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 10:11 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-...-massacre/

ESPN cut the meat, not the fat.
4 points from the article:
"1) ESPN Overpaid for Broadcast Rights...
2) Cable Cord-Cutting
3) Declining ESPN Ratings
4) Politics..."

Author thinks the politics on ESPN were a conscious effort to get expand their base, getting people interested in politics in addition to sports junkies. However, they appear to have alienated half their base while doing liberal political media much worse than places like MSNBC.

Sports is an escape and ESPN seems to have forgotten that. Same way the strikes severely wounded major league baseball. Fans don't turn in to baseball to hear about multi-millionaires complaining about how they are treated by other multi-millionaires. There's no sympathy for either side.

You act like sports and politics have always been separate. Muhamad Ali, Tommie Smith and John Carlos disagree.

But that was the athlete themselves demonstrating, not a steady dose of it from the medium delivering the content.

Again, everyone has the freedom to express themselves how they like. I don't like politics and social justice mixed in to my sports, so I avoid ESPN and ABC whenever possible.

So the others have no politics at all......

(04-27-2017 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My beef with First Take and its ilk is that people on "hot take" shows are getting pay raises while real journalists like Andy Katz, Brett McMurphy and Jayson Stark are getting laid off.

That's because the number of people watching loudmouths like Skippy and Stephen-A, and the revenue reaped from their shows, vastly exceeds the revenue generated from people reading articles or blogs on the espn website.

Which is no different from, say, some no-talent singer making millions or billions selling bland and simplistic music while very talented musicians either never get a recording contract or have to borrow money from friends to scrape together enough for a few days in a recording studio.

(04-27-2017 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-...-massacre/

ESPN cut the meat, not the fat.
4 points from the article:
"1) ESPN Overpaid for Broadcast Rights...
2) Cable Cord-Cutting
3) Declining ESPN Ratings
4) Politics..."

Author thinks the politics on ESPN were a conscious effort to get expand their base, getting people interested in politics in addition to sports junkies. However, they appear to have alienated half their base while doing liberal political media much worse than places like MSNBC.

Sports is an escape and ESPN seems to have forgotten that. Same way the strikes severely wounded major league baseball. Fans don't turn in to baseball to hear about multi-millionaires complaining about how they are treated by other multi-millionaires. There's no sympathy for either side.

That's just a red herring point of whining from a conservative political commentator in the same manner that we see red herring points of whining from liberal political commentators whenever they complain about sports "wrapping themselves in the flag" (e.g. the Colin Kaepernick storyline).

The reality is that the subset of people that claim to "never" watch ESPN supposedly because of politics are largely confined to message boards like this one and Twitter that are hardly representative of the general population. Also, they're generally all outright liars or at least overstating their claims. People can complain all they want about shows like First Take (and believe me, I completely hate everything about that show), but I really don't GAF what they say on that show since (a) it's on when I'm at work so I'm not watching it anyway and (b) it has absolutely no bearing on whether I watch a game on ESPN involving one of my favorite teams later on that evening. The vast majority of sports fans out there have my approach regardless of how much they might puff online. The "stick to sports" crowd is largely a message board/blog/Twitter phenomenon that ultimately goes away when their own teams are playing.

Case in point: the SEC T-shirt fan base is hardly a bastion of liberals, yet they watch ESPN more than ever because political viewpoints on the pundit shows are irrelevant when it comes to watching the ACTUAL GAMES. Does anyone actually think a material number of Alabama fans decided to not watch Crimson Tide games on ESPN because they gave an award to Caitlyn Jenner? Seriously?! The numbers certainly don't show that. Ultimately, a person saying that he won't watch a game on ESPN because he doesn't like the political viewpoints on a pundit show airing at entirely different time of the day makes about as much sense as saying that he won't watch a show that he otherwise likes on ABC prime time because he doesn't like the political viewpoints voiced on Good Morning America or the The View that he doesn't even watch. Now, I'm sure that there are a few people like that out there, but they're properly defined as psychopaths.

My beef with First Take and its ilk is that people on "hot take" shows are getting pay raises while real journalists like Andy Katz, Brett McMurphy and Jayson Stark are getting laid off. THAT is the problem here regardless of the underlying political viewpoints being stated.

On this one---your way off base. Plenty of people dont watch the ESPN talking head stuff. The ratings indicate that most people virtually NEVER watch any of the talking head shows. They tune into ESPN to watch the games and then they go elsewhere. The idea that people who don't watch First Take are just some small minority in the Twitterverse is just silly. Im a huge sports fan, but I rarely if ever watch any of the ESPN talk shows (and it has nothing to do with politics---Ive just never had much interest in them). That said, if they are taking political stands on these shows, its probably not going to be a net positive to alienate 50% of your mass audience in this politically polarized nation. Bottom line---Chevy doesn't want to get into the abortion debate. Chevy wants to sell SUV's to both sides.

My take is the net gain in audience produced by a live talking head show over what ESPN would get playing poker, a replay of Sports Center broadcast, or a rerun of a football game is negligible. That's why talent is being culled. That calculus is entirely different when it comes time to ante up for rights to a live sports event that WILL draw more viewers/subscribers.

(04-27-2017 10:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-...-massacre/

ESPN cut the meat, not the fat.
4 points from the article:
"1) ESPN Overpaid for Broadcast Rights...
2) Cable Cord-Cutting
3) Declining ESPN Ratings
4) Politics..."

Author thinks the politics on ESPN were a conscious effort to get expand their base, getting people interested in politics in addition to sports junkies. However, they appear to have alienated half their base while doing liberal political media much worse than places like MSNBC.

Sports is an escape and ESPN seems to have forgotten that. Same way the strikes severely wounded major league baseball. Fans don't turn in to baseball to hear about multi-millionaires complaining about how they are treated by other multi-millionaires. There's no sympathy for either side.

That's just a red herring point of whining from a conservative political commentator in the same manner that we see red herring points of whining from liberal political commentators whenever they complain about sports "wrapping themselves in the flag" (e.g. the Colin Kaepernick storyline).

The reality is that the subset of people that claim to "never" watch ESPN supposedly because of politics are largely confined to message boards like this one and Twitter that are hardly representative of the general population. Also, they're generally all outright liars or at least overstating their claims. People can complain all they want about shows like First Take (and believe me, I completely hate everything about that show), but I really don't GAF what they say on that show since (a) it's on when I'm at work so I'm not watching it anyway and (b) it has absolutely no bearing on whether I watch a game on ESPN involving one of my favorite teams later on that evening. The vast majority of sports fans out there have my approach regardless of how much they might puff online. The "stick to sports" crowd is largely a message board/blog/Twitter phenomenon that ultimately goes away when their own teams are playing.

Case in point: the SEC T-shirt fan base is hardly a bastion of liberals, yet they watch ESPN more than ever because political viewpoints on the pundit shows are irrelevant when it comes to watching the ACTUAL GAMES. Does anyone actually think a material number of Alabama fans decided to not watch Crimson Tide games on ESPN because they gave an award to Caitlyn Jenner? Seriously?! The numbers certainly don't show that. Ultimately, a person saying that he won't watch a game on ESPN because he doesn't like the political viewpoints on a pundit show airing at entirely different time of the day makes about as much sense as saying that he won't watch a show that he otherwise likes on ABC prime time because he doesn't like the political viewpoints voiced on Good Morning America or the The View that he doesn't even watch. Now, I'm sure that there are a few people like that out there, but they're properly defined as psychopaths.

My beef with First Take and its ilk is that people on "hot take" shows are getting pay raises while real journalists like Andy Katz, Brett McMurphy and Jayson Stark are getting laid off. THAT is the problem here regardless of the underlying political viewpoints being stated.

On this one---your way off base. Plenty of people dont watch the ESPN talking head stuff. The ratings indicate that most people virtually NEVER watch any of the talking head shows. They tune into ESPN to watch the games and then they go elsewhere. The idea that people who don't watch First Take are just some small minority in the Twitterverse is just silly. Im a huge sports fan, but I rarely if ever watch any of the ESPN talk shows (and it has nothing to do with politics---Ive just never had much interest in them).

I'm actually not disagreeing with you at all. I totally believe that plenty of people don't watch First Take (including me since I loathe that show). My issue is with the argument that viewers are being driven away from ESPN overall (meaning the actual games) because of political viewpoints on First Take-type shows. I don't buy that for one second. In fact, I completely agree with your statement: "They tune into ESPN to watch the games and then they go elsewhere." That is how the vast, vast, vast majority sports fans approach ESPN. The political viewpoints of ESPN pundits are completely irrelevant as to whether that supermajority of people will watch an actual game on ESPN.

(04-27-2017 10:42 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My beef with First Take and its ilk is that people on "hot take" shows are getting pay raises while real journalists like Andy Katz, Brett McMurphy and Jayson Stark are getting laid off.

That's because the number of people watching loudmouths like Skippy and Stephen-A, and the revenue reaped from their shows, vastly exceeds the revenue generated from people reading articles or blogs on the espn website.

Which is no different from, say, some no-talent singer making millions or billions selling bland and simplistic music while very talented musicians either never get a recording contract or have to borrow money from friends to scrape together enough for a few days in a recording studio.

Oh, I totally know why that's happening. Frankly, ESPN had been so profitable up until now that it has been able to stem off the migration from journalism to punditry longer than most other entities. The news networks and newspapers have long found that their blathering talk show hosts and columnists draw more eyeballs than real substantive journalism, so that's why so many of the news networks and online sites across the political spectrum are 99% hot takes with a tiny smidgen of actual journalism.

(04-27-2017 10:42 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 10:19 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 10:11 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-...-massacre/

ESPN cut the meat, not the fat.
4 points from the article:
"1) ESPN Overpaid for Broadcast Rights...
2) Cable Cord-Cutting
3) Declining ESPN Ratings
4) Politics..."

Author thinks the politics on ESPN were a conscious effort to get expand their base, getting people interested in politics in addition to sports junkies. However, they appear to have alienated half their base while doing liberal political media much worse than places like MSNBC.

Sports is an escape and ESPN seems to have forgotten that. Same way the strikes severely wounded major league baseball. Fans don't turn in to baseball to hear about multi-millionaires complaining about how they are treated by other multi-millionaires. There's no sympathy for either side.

You act like sports and politics have always been separate. Muhamad Ali, Tommie Smith and John Carlos disagree.

But that was the athlete themselves demonstrating, not a steady dose of it from the medium delivering the content.

Again, everyone has the freedom to express themselves how they like. I don't like politics and social justice mixed in to my sports, so I avoid ESPN and ABC whenever possible.

So the others have no politics at all......

No, they can do as they please....and I can change the channel.

It is the Howard Stern effect with guys like Stephen A.

Nobody really cares what he says, it is just entertaining (both negatively and positively) to hear him say it.

Ryan Clark is on espn right now. Does it not go into effect until May?

(04-27-2017 02:13 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Ryan Clark is on espn right now. Does it no go into effect until May?

for some may very well go into effect after the draft. Maybe gave them the option???

CBS sports network should take in the top people cut. They just seem to be a tier below ESPN, NBCS, FS1

Cord cutting and rights fees cited as reasons for layoffs. That does not bode well for future rights fees.

espn layoffs

(04-27-2017 03:00 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Cord cutting and rights fees cited as reasons for layoffs. That does not bode well for future rights fees.

espn layoffs

Sounds like they are going to double-down on the SJW political stuff...

"CHANGE IN EDITORIAL APPROACH: The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Ramachandran & Flint write while economics is the "primary factor motivating the cuts, ESPN ... is also rethinking how it covers sports in an age with so many competing outlets." One source said that with sports news and game clips now omnipresent, ESPN "wants to focus more on building strong personalities and more opinion that will likely appeal to younger viewers." ESPN is also "looking to increase diversity and perspectives on its franchise shows such as 'Sportscenter'" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4/27)."

(04-27-2017 10:19 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 10:11 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-...-massacre/

ESPN cut the meat, not the fat.
4 points from the article:
"1) ESPN Overpaid for Broadcast Rights...
2) Cable Cord-Cutting
3) Declining ESPN Ratings
4) Politics..."

Author thinks the politics on ESPN were a conscious effort to get expand their base, getting people interested in politics in addition to sports junkies. However, they appear to have alienated half their base while doing liberal political media much worse than places like MSNBC.

Sports is an escape and ESPN seems to have forgotten that. Same way the strikes severely wounded major league baseball. Fans don't turn in to baseball to hear about multi-millionaires complaining about how they are treated by other multi-millionaires. There's no sympathy for either side.

You act like sports and politics have always been separate. Muhamad Ali, Tommie Smith and John Carlos disagree.

But that was the athlete themselves demonstrating, not a steady dose of it from the medium delivering the content.

Again, everyone has the freedom to express themselves how they like. I don't like politics and social justice mixed in to my sports, so I avoid ESPN and ABC whenever possible.

Give me your definition of social justice? You okay with all the flag waving and fighter jet flyovers? Is it you don't like it because it's not the politics you subscribe to?

(04-27-2017 03:07 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 03:00 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Cord cutting and rights fees cited as reasons for layoffs. That does not bode well for future rights fees.

espn layoffs

Sounds like they are going to double-down on the SJW political stuff...

"CHANGE IN EDITORIAL APPROACH: The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Ramachandran & Flint write while economics is the "primary factor motivating the cuts, ESPN ... is also rethinking how it covers sports in an age with so many competing outlets." One source said that with sports news and game clips now omnipresent, ESPN "wants to focus more on building strong personalities and more opinion that will likely appeal to younger viewers." ESPN is also "looking to increase diversity and perspectives on its franchise shows such as 'Sportscenter'" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4/27)."

It's not about increasing "SJW political stuff". Sure, you might see some of that stuff, but well over 90% of the content is all about hot sports takes, e.g. "DOES LEBRON STILL HAVE THE FIRE TO WIN?!" or "WILL BELICHICK BENCH BRADY AFTER A 2-GAME LOSING STREAK FOR THE PATS?!" That's what ESPN means by increasing "opinion". To be sure, it totally blows (but it's the unfortunate reality).

(04-27-2017 03:00 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Cord cutting and rights fees cited as reasons for layoffs. That does not bode well for future rights fees.

espn layoffs

The last effected will be the majors and the P5. If you are in the G5 or a mid-major bball conference you will feel it first.