(04-27-2017 12:32 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  Like in a football game. I just want the facts- the down and distance & scoreboard so to speak. And otherwise STFU. I don't want the babble (opinions) of the commentators.

NO commentators... at all? I agree that there is a huge spectrum of talent (just like with any job) and some are insufferable, but some are absolutely fantastic. do you just press the mute button? if all you need is down and distance and the score, that's an easy fix.

(04-27-2017 01:23 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 07:13 AM)Potomac Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 07:03 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  Seems we have some cold warriors on this board who are longing for the "good old days" when a white man could say anything he wanted.

Count down to the protests...3...2...1...

The first amendment only applies to them and not to differing opinions they refuse to listen to and consider.

First, I don't care what your opinion is, you have a right to say the most intelligent or the most ignorant statement that you want. I don't think either you or Longhorn are hearing what BDK is saying. Yeah, ESPN personalities have the right to say whatever they want, but we also have a right to disagree or not tune in. Moreover, BDK is right, sports should be the last bastion that anyone can turn to and not have to hear some political commentary from someone that you want to hear the latest stats or hear about the most recent amazing catch/shot. Voltaire said, (I agree) "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it."

Second, the political and social commentary from ESPN is precisely why I don't watch anything other than sporting events on any of their channels. I used to love to watch SportsCenter with Dan, Kenny or even Stuart. It's unwatchable now in large part because of their relentless non-sports related commentary. People want to be able to sit down with their beverage of choice and get away from what they hear all day, watch some damn sports and not hear about politics!

Agree completely, '71.

An old but good article on the subject

https://www.si.com/vault/2017/01/11/revo...-televised

This is about cord cutting, pure and simple. Once ESPN figures out what HBO and others are doing now, they'll offer a subscription streaming service and begin making money again. Because as much as people ***** and moan about the commentary, politics...blah blah blah...all sports fans will still sign up to stream the games anytime, anywhere for 14.99 a month, or more, with no contract.

(04-27-2017 01:03 PM)Potomac Wrote:  1) Their exclusive love affair with big market teams isn't very subtle. The yankees once had a 50 or 60 win season in the last decade, very much in 5th place late in the season in the NL East. I think it was while the Rays were having their brief but good WS run.
Do we bother to give the Tampa Bay Rays coverage and some love, you know, since they're winning and all? No. SC coverage was focused on the failed season of the yankees. Why are they in last place? What will it take to get back to prominence and win World Series again? It was insulting to the teams that were actually winning that season.

I know this is completely beside the point and there's no reason to actually bother with this response, but I'm a Yankee fan so just can't not point out that the Yankees haven't lost fewer than 84 games in a non-shortened season since 1992.

(04-27-2017 05:22 PM)JMUDuke2002 Wrote:  This is about cord cutting, pure and simple. Once ESPN figures out what HBO and others are doing now, they'll offer a subscription streaming service and begin making money again. Because as much as people ***** and moan about the commentary, politics...blah blah blah...all sports fans will still sign up to stream the games anytime, anywhere for 14.99 a month, or more, with no contract.

You can stream ESPN now on Sling. It is $20 per month

https://www.sling.com/service
https://www.sling.com/programming/sports

(04-27-2017 01:36 PM)Potomac Wrote:  Great posts and I don't disagree. I hate First Take too. Not so much for the occasional political comment (I really don't know how frequent, I tune it off usually). They're entitled to say whatever they want to say and talk about what every they want to talk about. My problem is Stephen A Smith, Skip Bayless (when he was there) and even this new guy (I don't remember his name). Yell, Scream. "I don't like what you have to say so I'm going to argue with you just because I can". It's exhausting. It feels very scripted too. It's like they don't really disagree, they're just being told they have to disagree for drama and entertainment.
I get enough of that here on these message boards haha.

They also had Jessica Alba on the other day trying to advertise her diapers with MLB logos on them. I guess we're no longer in the age where a television segment is ad free, at least in between the commercials. Some rapper was on once too and couldn't talk sports to save his life.

I don't like it because it just seems so pointless. Their radio shows are just more shouting into microphones too.

I agree with this. It just all seems very fake - which is the exact opposite thing we want from anything having to do with sports. (And this also extends to politics - there are many political commentators who only make outrageous comments because it sells. Coulter, O'Reilly, Beck, Maher, Olbermann all fall into this category. Alex Jones' lawyer even tried to explain that he was just "playing a character" in his divorce trial last week.) Unfortunately, ESPN saw this concept and ran with it by hyping up people like Smith and Bayliss.

Ultimately, though, it does come down to the cord-cutters. Other people are right when they point to that as ultimately the popping of the sports business bubble. For decades, non-sports fans were forced to pay the fee to have ESPN if they wanted to have something besides the over-the-air networks to watch - now they don't. You're going to see more of this across all of the cable channels and we'll likely see it lead to a more decentralized channel system where people can just use the cable companies for internet and subscribe to individual channels. (Interestingly, one of the biggest opponents of "a-la-carte" programming has historically been the religious channels - which is why politicians have never seriously gone after the current model. Channels like TBN and EWTN are likely also feeling the squeeze - although they certainly don't cost as much to operate, they also don't have nearly the income from fees that ESPN has.)

(04-27-2017 06:29 PM)jmuwyhamhgawd Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 01:03 PM)Potomac Wrote:  1) Their exclusive love affair with big market teams isn't very subtle. The yankees once had a 50 or 60 win season in the last decade, very much in 5th place late in the season in the NL East. I think it was while the Rays were having their brief but good WS run.
Do we bother to give the Tampa Bay Rays coverage and some love, you know, since they're winning and all? No. SC coverage was focused on the failed season of the yankees. Why are they in last place? What will it take to get back to prominence and win World Series again? It was insulting to the teams that were actually winning that season.

I know this is completely beside the point and there's no reason to actually bother with this response, but I'm a Yankee fan so just can't not point out that the Yankees haven't lost fewer than 84 games in a non-shortened season since 1992.

I know this is completely beside the point and there's no reason to actually bother with this response, but I'm a Sox fan so just can't not point out that the Yankees suck.

(04-27-2017 06:29 PM)jmuwyhamhgawd Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 01:03 PM)Potomac Wrote:  1) Their exclusive love affair with big market teams isn't very subtle. The yankees once had a 50 or 60 win season in the last decade, very much in 5th place late in the season in the NL East. I think it was while the Rays were having their brief but good WS run.
Do we bother to give the Tampa Bay Rays coverage and some love, you know, since they're winning and all? No. SC coverage was focused on the failed season of the yankees. Why are they in last place? What will it take to get back to prominence and win World Series again? It was insulting to the teams that were actually winning that season.

I know this is completely beside the point and there's no reason to actually bother with this response, but I'm a Yankee fan so just can't not point out that the Yankees haven't lost fewer than 84 games in a non-shortened season since 1992.

I knew I was going to be corrected. I didn't bother to look it up. I guess I exaggerated by 25 games. Maybe they've never finished 5th place either?

Well... they weren't a playoff team. I think I could say that.

I was out at a local watering hole last night with the Caps/Pens game on one TV and the NFL draft on another TV. Couldn't help but notice, at the first intermission of the hockey game, instead of going to a studio and listening to a bunch of politics and stories about how every player on the team had overcome all the odds, they cut to the other hockey game. Crazy right? Around that same time, I think it was about 8:30 and the draft was still waiting for the second pick to be made (showtime was 8pm). Cleveland had 4 months to make its pick, you mean to tell me it needed 6-8 minutes last night to finalize its decision? No, ESPN had to dramatize it.

(04-28-2017 07:21 AM)JMUNewbill Wrote:  I was out at a local watering hole last night with the Caps/Pens game on one TV and the NFL draft on another TV. Couldn't help but notice, at the first intermission of the hockey game, instead of going to a studio and listening to a bunch of politics and stories about how every player on the team had overcome all the odds, they cut to the other hockey game. Crazy right? Around that same time, I think it was about 8:30 and the draft was still waiting for the second pick to be made (showtime was 8pm). Cleveland had 4 months to make its pick, you mean to tell me it needed 6-8 minutes last night to finalize its decision? No, ESPN had to dramatize it.

You could also then say that the NFL Network did so as well considering they broadcast it as well. It's not either doing so, it's simply the NFL doing so.

(04-28-2017 07:55 AM)RootinFerDukes Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 07:21 AM)JMUNewbill Wrote:  I was out at a local watering hole last night with the Caps/Pens game on one TV and the NFL draft on another TV. Couldn't help but notice, at the first intermission of the hockey game, instead of going to a studio and listening to a bunch of politics and stories about how every player on the team had overcome all the odds, they cut to the other hockey game. Crazy right? Around that same time, I think it was about 8:30 and the draft was still waiting for the second pick to be made (showtime was 8pm). Cleveland had 4 months to make its pick, you mean to tell me it needed 6-8 minutes last night to finalize its decision? No, ESPN had to dramatize it.

You could also then say that the NFL Network did so as well considering they broadcast it as well. It's not either doing so, it's simply the NFL doing so.

Yeah that's on the league needing everyone to be on the edge of their seats. I would be willing to wager a couple dollars it was league sources putting out the notion that the Browns might be looking at Trubisky at #1 too. A few years ago the Rams (I think it was the Rams) agreed to terms with their pick before the draft and I'm not sure the brass liked that idea. Don't think it's happened since.

After the 1st pick last night, it was quite dramatic the rest of the way. A lot of trades. Some definite surprises (starting with the 2nd pick...that is, the Bears, not Niners, grabbing Trubisky).

My son, daughter and I were tweeting throughout the 1st round and as we got closer to the Skins' 17th pick, we were feeling better and better because so many ahead went with offensive (npi) guys leaving a lot of quality defenders to pick from. Just glad the Skins didn't pick a kicker. We're saving that for tonight. :>)

(04-28-2017 08:44 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 07:55 AM)RootinFerDukes Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 07:21 AM)JMUNewbill Wrote:  I was out at a local watering hole last night with the Caps/Pens game on one TV and the NFL draft on another TV. Couldn't help but notice, at the first intermission of the hockey game, instead of going to a studio and listening to a bunch of politics and stories about how every player on the team had overcome all the odds, they cut to the other hockey game. Crazy right? Around that same time, I think it was about 8:30 and the draft was still waiting for the second pick to be made (showtime was 8pm). Cleveland had 4 months to make its pick, you mean to tell me it needed 6-8 minutes last night to finalize its decision? No, ESPN had to dramatize it.

You could also then say that the NFL Network did so as well considering they broadcast it as well. It's not either doing so, it's simply the NFL doing so.

Yeah that's on the league needing everyone to be on the edge of their seats. I would be willing to wager a couple dollars it was league sources putting out the notion that the Browns might be looking at Trubisky at #1 too. A few years ago the Rams (I think it was the Rams) agreed to terms with their pick before the draft and I'm not sure the brass liked that idea. Don't think it's happened since.

It wasn't just the Rams, EVERY team used to do this when picking #1, or at least attempted to. The reason it doesn't happen anymore is because the new Collective Bargaining Agreement slotted the salaries for rookies based on draft position. There is no longer any need to negotiate with #1 picks because their salary (and everyone else's) is pretty much already figured out.

(04-28-2017 08:49 AM)Wear Purple Wrote:  After the 1st pick last night, it was quite dramatic the rest of the way. A lot of trades. Some definite surprises (starting with the 2nd pick...that is, the Bears, not Niners, grabbing Trubisky).

My son, daughter and I were tweeting throughout the 1st round and as we got closer to the Skins' 17th pick, we were feeling better and better because so many ahead went with offensive (npi) guys leaving a lot of quality defenders to pick from. Just glad the Skins didn't pick a kicker. We're saving that for tonight. :>)

It's just awesome as a kid from Loudoun watching for my money the most dominant player I've seen in HS now playing for the hometown team.

Since this is "off topic", last night's NBC29 (Charlottesville) Sports Reporter threw out a draft stat involving UVA. He advised UVA has had at least 1 player drafted for the past 30+ years (can't recall the exact number but it was over 30). The point of mentioning it is that this streak is in jeopardy this year. They have an OL and RB (Smoke Mizzell) who are in same boat as Khalid and a few other Dukes. That is, might get picked in 7th round, might sign as a UDFA.

A good article outlining the ESPN layoff situation from syracuse.com where they interviewed new Cuse AD who worked at high levels of ESPN for over 30 years... http://www.syracuse.com/orangesports/ind...aranc.html

"According to Ourand, however, ESPN's subscriber base has dropped from a high of 100 million to around 87 million, mostly due to people abandoning cable TV. With ESPN making a reported $7 per cable subscription, cord-cutting has already cost the network around $91 million in potential revenue annually and a further deterioration seems likely.

That leaves some believing that ESPN significantly overpaid for those rights, especially given the direction the industry has headed."

Ourand went to my high school. Jesuit educated, so he's probably spot on.

I guess my bigger point got lost in the draft noise. I thought it was ironic/appropriate that NBCSN switched to coverage of the other hockey game rather than cut to some intermission talkshow for at least part of the intermission. Sports on sports on sports.

(04-28-2017 09:54 AM)JMUNewbill Wrote:  I guess my bigger point got lost in the draft noise. I thought it was ironic/appropriate that NBCSN switched to coverage of the other hockey game rather than cut to some intermission talkshow for at least part of the intermission. Sports on sports on sports.

As others have said earlier in the thread, ESPN, probably more than any other network, clearly prioritizes coverage of content that just so happens to be aired by their network. NBA is a big deal to them. NHL, on rival NBC, not so much.

That's one of my biggest complaints about ESPN. The wide world of sports (that we cover and screw all the others).