What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

ESPN Layoffs (1 Viewer)

Shady:

The money is still there. Its just not there on tv anymore
Maybe, but where are the advertisers going to spend their money to get the same level of return? Advertisers had been willing to pay more for sports on TV because they had a captive audience. But they're not as interested in buying advertising for web browsers and phones that can be easily blocked.

 
Maybe they should cover something other than the putridly awful NBA. But when you waste $ on a contract to cover it, I guess you have no choice. Not sure how anyone can stomach more than 5 seconds of that garbage.

 
The money is still there. Its just not there on tv anymore
Not really.

The way ESPN's cable economics work is that they extract a huge premium out of virtually all cable subscribers, whether the subscribers want to watch sports or not.

Basically the agreements between the cable companies and ESPN force all cable subscribers to subsidize ESPN.

That model isn't going to last forever. ESPN isn't the only one losing subscribers, the cable systems are losing them too. I don't know how often those charges come up for renegotiation, but I expect that there will be downward pressure on the per sub fee that ESPN gets to extract.

 
I have no idea what ESPN's plan is with all these firings. Is their entire network just going to be pinheads like Smith yelling at the TV all day long? 

 
They tried that once for an NFL game.  Early 80s, Jets game I think.  It was an awful experiment.  

ETA:

 

The Announcerless Game was an American football contest played on December 20, 1980, between the New York Jets and the Miami Dolphins of the National Football League. As an experiment, the NBC television network broadcast it without assigning any commentators to cover it. The two teams were playing the last game of that season for them as neither had qualified for the playoffs, and since the game was being broadcast nationally NBC executive Don Ohlmeyer decided on the idea to boost what would otherwise have been weak ratings. The Jets won a 24–17 upset victory.[1]

To replace the announcers, the network used more graphics than usual and asked the public address announcer at Miami's Orange Bowl to impart more information than he typically did. Efforts to use more sensitive microphones and pick up more sound from the field, however, did not succeed. While the experiment did increase the telecast's ratings, it was widely regarded as a failure since it did not provide sufficient context for viewers. No network broadcasting any major North American professional team sport has ever tried it again, except through alternate feeds of games offered with announcers
Maybe they should.  That was like 40 years ago

 
If they really want to save some cash they should have no announcers.  Just show the event as if you were in a seat in the stadium.  That would rock
Yeah, with my luck, I'd get stuck behind a guy with one of those huge helmet things on, and he never sits down.

 
I have no idea what ESPN's plan is with all these firings. Is their entire network just going to be pinheads like Smith yelling at the TV all day long? 
That appears to be the trend.  I am sure they run some type of analytics to determine who is getting ratings and thus making the network money.  All the news networks are like this now too.  Instead of rattling off news all day, it is talking heads giving their take on the political landscape.  For as many people like me who complain about this trend, there must be a ton more than me who find it entertaining and tune in.  So the networks keep going that direction.  The whole trend reminds me of the movie Idiocracy. 

 
That appears to be the trend.  I am sure they run some type of analytics to determine who is getting ratings and thus making the network money.  All the news networks are like this now too.  Instead of rattling off news all day, it is talking heads giving their take on the political landscape.  For as many people like me who complain about this trend, there must be a ton more than me who find it entertaining and tune in.  So the networks keep going that direction.  The whole trend reminds me of the movie Idiocracy. 
Probably right. I don't watch much ESPN during the day anymore. Once they stopped showing highlights of the past day's games I lost interest. 

 
If they really want to save some cash they should have no announcers.  Just show the event as if you were in a seat in the stadium.  That would rock
There are still redundancies there.  For example, why do they need Kiper and McShay?  One "expert" making mistakes on how the draft is going to play out should be enough.  Same thing with the NFL analysts.  They still have Herm Edwards, Booger MacFarland, Jeff Saturday, etc.  How many ex-players/coaches do they need to explain/rant about stuff? 

 
There are still redundancies there.  For example, why do they need Kiper and McShay?  One "expert" making mistakes on how the draft is going to play out should be enough.  Same thing with the NFL analysts.  They still have Herm Edwards, Booger MacFarland, Jeff Saturday, etc.  How many ex-players/coaches do they need to explain/rant about stuff? 
They keep all these people and fire the likes of Ed Werder.

That's some damn good work Bristol. 

 
They keep all these people and fire the likes of Ed Werder.

That's some damn good work Bristol. 
I was thinking that maybe they viewed Ed Werder as being a "one trick pony" - in other words, he only covered the Cowboys and the other insiders could assume that role.  But, if that was truly the case they would have gotten rid of Sal Palantonio too since he only covers the Eagles.  As Cowherd wrote last week, the network is going to slowly bleed to death.  One day there is going to be a 30 for 30 on the ESPN story but who knows where it will air by the time it is produced since ESPN could be long gone. 

 
They tried that once for an NFL game.  Early 80s, Jets game I think.  It was an awful experiment.  

ETA:

 

The Announcerless Game was an American football contest played on December 20, 1980, between the New York Jets and the Miami Dolphins of the National Football League. As an experiment, the NBC television network broadcast it without assigning any commentators to cover it. The two teams were playing the last game of that season for them as neither had qualified for the playoffs, and since the game was being broadcast nationally NBC executive Don Ohlmeyer decided on the idea to boost what would otherwise have been weak ratings. The Jets won a 24–17 upset victory.[1]

To replace the announcers, the network used more graphics than usual and asked the public address announcer at Miami's Orange Bowl to impart more information than he typically did. Efforts to use more sensitive microphones and pick up more sound from the field, however, did not succeed. While the experiment did increase the telecast's ratings, it was widely regarded as a failure since it did not provide sufficient context for viewers. No network broadcasting any major North American professional team sport has ever tried it again, except through alternate feeds of games offered with announcers
Technology is so much more advanced now that I would like to see them try it again. The on field mikes and players wired could make it interesting to watch. 

 
They tried that once for an NFL game.  Early 80s, Jets game I think.  It was an awful experiment.  

ETA:

 

The Announcerless Game was an American football contest played on December 20, 1980, between the New York Jets and the Miami Dolphins of the National Football League. As an experiment, the NBC television network broadcast it without assigning any commentators to cover it. The two teams were playing the last game of that season for them as neither had qualified for the playoffs, and since the game was being broadcast nationally NBC executive Don Ohlmeyer decided on the idea to boost what would otherwise have been weak ratings. The Jets won a 24–17 upset victory.[1]

To replace the announcers, the network used more graphics than usual and asked the public address announcer at Miami's Orange Bowl to impart more information than he typically did. Efforts to use more sensitive microphones and pick up more sound from the field, however, did not succeed. While the experiment did increase the telecast's ratings, it was widely regarded as a failure since it did not provide sufficient context for viewers. No network broadcasting any major North American professional team sport has ever tried it again, except through alternate feeds of games offered with announcers
I would think after almost 40 years the technology would be better to pull it off.  I am sure the typical sports fan is so used to having announcers though that the general public would not widely accept going to announcerless games.  Frankly, I am at the point sometimes where I play the radio broadcast of the local feed instead of listen to the ESPN announcers - I do that for college football depending on who the ESPN announcers are (i.e., no way I will ever listen to Beth Mowens call a game). 

 
I would think after almost 40 years the technology would be better to pull it off.  I am sure the typical sports fan is so used to having announcers though that the general public would not widely accept going to announcerless games.  Frankly, I am at the point sometimes where I play the radio broadcast of the local feed instead of listen to the ESPN announcers - I do that for college football depending on who the ESPN announcers are (i.e., no way I will ever listen to Beth Mowens call a game). 
I turn it down or have music on as well

 
Shady:

Maybe, but where are the advertisers going to spend their money to get the same level of return? Advertisers had been willing to pay more for sports on TV because they had a captive audience. But they're not as interested in buying advertising for web browsers and phones that can be easily blocked.
facebook, twitter, google, amazon, instagram

 
Not really.

The way ESPN's cable economics work is that they extract a huge premium out of virtually all cable subscribers, whether the subscribers want to watch sports or not.

Basically the agreements between the cable companies and ESPN force all cable subscribers to subsidize ESPN.

That model isn't going to last forever. ESPN isn't the only one losing subscribers, the cable systems are losing them too. I don't know how often those charges come up for renegotiation, but I expect that there will be downward pressure on the per sub fee that ESPN gets to extract.
How is what you are saying any contradiction to what I said?

 
How is what you are saying any contradiction to what I said?
I think you said the "money is there", which I took to mean that there are people willing to spend it. 

The evidence suggests that lots of people have been unwillingly subsidizing these massive broadcast rights contracts. And it seems likely that is coming to an end. Though not overnight.

If I misinterpreted your comments, my apologies.

 
I think you said the "money is there", which I took to mean that there are people willing to spend it. 

The evidence suggests that lots of people have been unwillingly subsidizing these massive broadcast rights contracts. And it seems likely that is coming to an end. Though not overnight.

If I misinterpreted your comments, my apologies.
I think the money will still be there in other venues such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Instagram, Twitter etc and no longer on TV

 
There are still redundancies there.  For example, why do they need Kiper and McShay?  One "expert" making mistakes on how the draft is going to play out should be enough.  Same thing with the NFL analysts.  They still have Herm Edwards, Booger MacFarland, Jeff Saturday, etc.  How many ex-players/coaches do they need to explain/rant about stuff? 
They have so many NFL "experts" these days. Are they all really necessary?

Looks like they continue to layoff people that provide "smart" analysis and have kept most of the loud guys.

 
I can't make this stuff up. Not sure this pair should be calling Mountain West games

@richarddeitsch: ESPN is set to assign Beth Mowins & Rex Ryan for its MNF opening doubleheader on Sept. 11. @SInow Media column: http://on.si.com/2r7jqbR

 
I can't make this stuff up. Not sure this pair should be calling Mountain West games

@richarddeitsch: ESPN is set to assign Beth Mowins & Rex Ryan for its MNF opening doubleheader on Sept. 11. @SInow Media column: http://on.si.com/2r7jqbR
Rex was pretty bad during the FSU spring game. Interesting he is already on MNF. I know they have better options for that second game. However he will probably be better than when it was Mike and Mike

 
I can't make this stuff up. Not sure this pair should be calling Mountain West games

@richarddeitsch: ESPN is set to assign Beth Mowins & Rex Ryan for its MNF opening doubleheader on Sept. 11. @SInow Media column: http://on.si.com/2r7jqbR
She better not wear open toed shoes because if she does he probably won't be able to speak.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So how many John Claytons and Jason Starks could ESPN afford for what they're going to spend to bring back the redneck piece of #### to ask us if we're ready for some football once a week?

 
So how many John Claytons and Jason Starks could ESPN afford for what they're going to spend to bring back the redneck piece of #### to ask us if we're ready for some football once a week?
Jemele Hill's weave upkeep isn't cheap, either.  

lil' diversity ain't gonna harm anyone.  

 
So how many John Claytons and Jason Starks could ESPN afford for what they're going to spend to bring back the redneck piece of #### to ask us if we're ready for some football once a week?
To be fair,  sometimes that’s the most entertaining part of the game 

 
Pretty interesting. Something too big to fail seems to be doing just that. 

I've read some of their plans for launching ESPN Plus (streaming subscription service) in 2018 and maybe I'm just apathetic to ESPN in general but the vibe I get from this move is that they have sucked every cent they can out of traditional cable and now they are trying to reinvent that same scenario on their own digital platform. I hope Netflix and the others kick big ol' bad ESPN back to the curb, but not before giving them a sense of false hope and bleeding them dry. Just my opinion, but I think this company has been "dirty" for a long time. I don't mean to offend anyone who loves ESPN or is affiliated with them. I loved ESPN. I thought they were important at a time but they are kind of like Way-Mart to me; something that was good and then got too good and they knew it and quit caring about the people they strived to serve. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top