What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Rise and Fall of ESPN (1 Viewer)

McDonald's makes a ton of money every year. Doesn't make it fine dining. SAS appeals to the masses who dig his schtick. I don't dig that schtick so I don't get why he's on the air. If ESPN wants to pay him and feel that return is good, then so be it. But don't act like you can guarantee that the contract is worth it to them so you can look down at all of us who don't get it. It was worth it to them to sign Greenberg and all the people on that show. How has that worked out? 
I’ve said SAS sucks imo throughout this thread. Doesn’t mean that people aren’t watching him. It has nothing to do with whether he’s good or bad at all. That’s the part you keep glossing over. People watch him. Period. 

Also the new Greenburg show seems like a flop but he’s not overpaid. He’s made his contract back for them 20x over based off that radio show alone I’d guess. 

 
I’ve said SAS sucks imo throughout this thread. Doesn’t mean that people aren’t watching him. It has nothing to do with whether he’s good or bad at all. That’s the part you keep glossing over. People watch him. Period. 

Also the new Greenburg show seems like a flop but he’s not overpaid. He’s made his contract back for them 20x over based off that radio show alone I’d guess. 
I think I agree with you here but the second point I really can't follow at all.  

 
John Skipper, the coke head who ran the company into the ground was on the BS podcast and man he seems pretty damn sure of himself that he did a fantastic job.  I cannot believe BS didnt go after him more for firing him and then the layoffs because of his horrific decisions. 
Skipper wouldn't have agreed to do the podcast if they hadn't negotiated a temporary truce beforehand. The whole point of the show was for each of them to get their latest talking points out into the mainstream. They both need to rehab their reputations.

Simmons' empire is crumbling. The Ringer has not blossomed into a "must see" pop culture website, and Simmons has been tagged with a reputation of being a stubborn autocrat who doesn't play well with others. By bringing Skipper onto his show, he's hoping that it will create the illusion that he's an elite-level media mogul, thereby attracting investors and/or advertisers.

 
There is no data that says SAS appeals to anyone or that viewers like his shtick.  Its just another bad move by ESPN.. 
For better or worse ... it's totally fine with 2019 ESPN is a ton of viewers hate his schtick. So long as they keep viewing.

That angle is a big reason I think his more recent knowledge gaffes are calculated.

 
Yes, I've never understood when people say "I'm sure they've done the research", like companies are infallible when it comes to predicting the future with data.  

Not making any other point in this thread, because I honestly have both loved and hated SAS depending on what year it was.  But to assume that companies "know stuff" because they have data is odd.  But that's none of my business.   :TakesASipOfMyNewCoke:

 
Yes, I've never understood when people say "I'm sure they've done the research", like companies are infallible when it comes to predicting the future with data.  

Not making any other point in this thread, because I honestly have both loved and hated SAS depending on what year it was.  But to assume that companies "know stuff" because they have data is odd.  But that's none of my business.   :TakesASipOfMyNewCoke:
They can just look at his ratings and how much they charge for his show to their advertisers compared to their other shows. They literally know exactly how much he makes for them. You don’t need to be a methodologist to make sense of this. 

 
Skipper wouldn't have agreed to do the podcast if they hadn't negotiated a temporary truce beforehand. The whole point of the show was for each of them to get their latest talking points out into the mainstream. They both need to rehab their reputations.

Simmons' empire is crumbling. The Ringer has not blossomed into a "must see" pop culture website, and Simmons has been tagged with a reputation of being a stubborn autocrat who doesn't play well with others. By bringing Skipper onto his show, he's hoping that it will create the illusion that he's an elite-level media mogul, thereby attracting investors and/or advertisers.
The ringer made 15M in podcast ad sales last year alone which made them profitable according to WSJ. Their pod network is extremely valuable. Wouldn’t shock me if they dumped the website at some point. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They can just look at his ratings and how much they charge for his show to their advertisers compared to their other shows. They literally know exactly how much he makes for them. You don’t need to be a methodologist to make sense of this. 
But that doesn't predict his future worth.  That predicts his past worth.  And if ESPN continues to lose money, signing big contracts isn't something a methodologist would approve of.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But that doesn't predict his future worth.  That predicts his past worth.  And if ESPN continues to lose money, signing big contracts isn't something a methodologist would approve of.
They can see what he is worth all the way up to this morning. If they have 3-5 years of him delivering a certain number to their company I’m pretty sure they will feel safe on him delivering the next contract too.

I’m sure with what they are charging in carriage fees and ad rates they don’t need him to be this big for all 5 years either. 

 
But that doesn't predict his future worth.  That predicts his past worth.  And if ESPN continues to lose money, signing big contracts isn't something a methodologist would approve of.
Also espn isn’t losing money at all. They just aren’t making as much as they did at their peak. 

 
They can see what he is worth all the way up to this morning. If they have 3-5 years of him delivering a certain number to their company I’m pretty sure they will feel safe on him delivering the next contract too.

I’m sure with what they are charging in carriage fees and ad rates they don’t need him to be this big for all 5 years either. 
Enron's stock looked awesome the morning of August 28, 2000.  No reason to think they weren't going to be killing it the next couple of years.  Honestly, I stopped following after that day, so I can't tell you if the rise continued or they just finally leveled out, though.  :shrug:

 
Also espn isn’t losing money at all. They just aren’t making as much as they did at their peak. 
I could be wrong, GB, but I believe they are currently losing money every year.  Disney is pretty much keeping them afloat.  In fact, I thought ESPN was pretty much the only branch of Disney not making money.  I thought that's what was reported when the layoffs happened.  I could be wrong, though.  This morning I spend 15 minutes looking for my keys that I had in my hand.  So.  You know.  There's that.

 
Yes, I've never understood when people say "I'm sure they've done the research", like companies are infallible when it comes to predicting the future with data.  

Not making any other point in this thread, because I honestly have both loved and hated SAS depending on what year it was.  But to assume that companies "know stuff" because they have data is odd.  But that's none of my business.   :TakesASipOfMyNewCoke:
infallible <> making informed decisions with the data

no one is guaranteeing anything, but it makes little sense to think that random internet commenters disliking SAS likely trumps a billion-dollar enterprise's methodology and consideration.

 
McDonald's makes a ton of money every year. Doesn't make it fine dining. SAS appeals to the masses who dig his schtick. I don't dig that schtick so I don't get why he's on the air. If ESPN wants to pay him and feel that return is good, then so be it. But don't act like you can guarantee that the contract is worth it to them so you can look down at all of us who don't get it. It was worth it to them to sign Greenberg and all the people on that show. How has that worked out? 
Seems like a strange analogy and point.  I mean, sure Capella swore the blood of his first-born that this will work out, but in general, no one thinks it's guaranteed.  Like McDonald's, playing to the hoi polloi can be profitable and no one is arguing that SAS or McDonald's is haute couture.

 
Enron's stock looked awesome the morning of August 28, 2000.  No reason to think they weren't going to be killing it the next couple of years.  Honestly, I stopped following after that day, so I can't tell you if the rise continued or they just finally leveled out, though.  :shrug:
You’re way way way smarter than this post 

 
I could be wrong, GB, but I believe they are currently losing money every year.  Disney is pretty much keeping them afloat.  In fact, I thought ESPN was pretty much the only branch of Disney not making money.  I thought that's what was reported when the layoffs happened.  I could be wrong, though.  This morning I spend 15 minutes looking for my keys that I had in my hand.  So.  You know.  There's that.
You’re conflating losing money with not meeting projected earnings. They aren’t losing money. 

 
Yes.  Declining.  Viewership has been down greatly the past couple years.  And they continue to drop this year.  Hell, the AAF got better viewership ratings in Week 1.
Their share in the international market dwarfs that of the NFL.  NBA revenue is growing 3x faster than the NFL and even the most conservative projections have them passing them in the next 8-10 years.

 
Final binding bids are being taken this month for the 21 former Fox regional sports networks that Disney was order to divest as part of their acquisition of Fox.  The sale must be completed within 90 days although there's supposedly an option for an extension.

There have been a number of rumored bidders including Liberty Media (owners of Sirius XM, Formula 1, Starz, etc.), Sinclair (owners of a ton of local stations) and MLB.  There's also a private equity group involving Ice Cube although the BIG3's recent deal with CBS may be a sign that this effort is losing steam.

If the RSNs are sold as a lot, it will have impact on how we consume sports.  If Disney decides to sell them off piecemeal, they're individually less of a threat to the status quo.  Either way, the sale will say a lot about the state of sports media as we enter the next decade.

 
There is no data that says SAS appeals to anyone or that viewers like his shtick.  Its just another bad move by ESPN.. 
For better or worse ... it's totally fine with 2019 ESPN is a ton of viewers hate his schtick. So long as they keep viewing.

That angle is a big reason I think his more recent knowledge gaffes are calculated.
I wouldn't watch him for a second on live tv (although I have seen his goofs on twitter videos), but I have to think a majority of "the masses" are watching him like I watch Duke and the Pats....out of total hate.

 
I think what makes this even worse is most of these contracts were given out around the massive layoffs.  And ESPN is still hemorrhaging money.  They might not have enough money to keep the NFL when that contract ends, meaning their only sport will pretty much be the declining NBA.

Not sure if this is true or not, but I had heard a story (can't find any info on it now, so not sure if actually accurate) that when FS1 was getting ready to premiere, ESPN began to not allow their highlight clips to be used by other networks.  This meant that FS1, who was hoping their SportsCenter-type show would be a tent pole, couldn't actually show highlights on their highlight show.  But the other networks retaliated by saying the same thing.  So every network had their sports and no longer shared highlights.  Thus, the death of the highlight show.  So while ESPN was successful in stopping FS1 from competing against their tent pole, they basically cut off their nose to spite their face.

Again, not sure how accurate that is but it kind of makes sense. 


Declining?


Yes.  Declining.  Viewership has been down greatly the past couple years.  And they continue to drop this year.  Hell, the AAF got better viewership ratings in Week 1.


Their share in the international market dwarfs that of the NFL.  NBA revenue is growing 3x faster than the NFL and even the most conservative projections have them passing them in the next 8-10 years.
No one....NO ONE...hates the NBA more than I.  It's not even basketball any more.  But I think you are both right, in your own way:  NFL rules the US, NBA rules the world.  Unfortunately.

 
Skipper wouldn't have agreed to do the podcast if they hadn't negotiated a temporary truce beforehand. The whole point of the show was for each of them to get their latest talking points out into the mainstream. They both need to rehab their reputations.

Simmons' empire is crumbling. The Ringer has not blossomed into a "must see" pop culture website, and Simmons has been tagged with a reputation of being a stubborn autocrat who doesn't play well with others. By bringing Skipper onto his show, he's hoping that it will create the illusion that he's an elite-level media mogul, thereby attracting investors and/or advertisers.
AKA: "Self-absorbed, tone-deaf, entitled D-bag"

 
Mike Sr & Jr were doing a Notre Dame bet vs. UConn and asked for suggestions on what they should have to do if they lose.  I suggested they have to co-host Get Out with Greenie.  The off air camera of that would be hilarious.

 
Mike Sr & Jr were doing a Notre Dame bet vs. UConn and asked for suggestions on what they should have to do if they lose.  I suggested they have to co-host Get Out with Greenie.  The off air camera of that would be hilarious.
Golic Sr. doesn't honor his bets anway.

 
The bundling of Disney+ and Hulu with ESPN+ will drive up the number of subscribers.  I doubt many people signing up for Disney's programming will be watching college baseball, Serie A and 30 for 30s but it should still boost their advertising revenues a bit.

 
Disney is selling the 21 former Fox RSNs to Sinclair for more than $10B.  With the move, Sinclair immediately becomes a major national player in sports broadcasting.  Their ownership of local network affiliates should help them in negotiating cable carriage for their sports channels.

 
Disney is selling the 21 former Fox RSNs to Sinclair for more than $10B.  With the move, Sinclair immediately becomes a major national player in sports broadcasting.  Their ownership of local network affiliates should help them in negotiating cable carriage for their sports channels.
Local Sinclair stations are already in the sports business; they all carry Ring of Honor wrestling. :coffee:

 
Another major national wrestling promotion would be good for the "sport".
There's about to be another major national wrestling promotion, but it's not Ring of Honor.  It's All Elite Wrestling which is being funded by Shahid Khan (the owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars and Fulham F.C.) and will air on TBS.

 
There's about to be another major national wrestling promotion, but it's not Ring of Honor.  It's All Elite Wrestling which is being funded by Shahid Khan (the owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars and Fulham F.C.) and will air on TBS.
Khan would make a good kayfabe heel

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top