The Rise and Fall of ESPN (1 Viewer)

[massraider]

Basically every other part of Disney is seeing cuts; the fact that Grim Squeaker came for ESPN is no surprise.

And look who was cut. Camera talent from the studio shows. The shows and formats that no one here watches.

 

[Insein]

I won't go into the Disney "woke" stuff, but I think it's impossible to see these moves without considering the overall economics of Disney corporate, even understanding this is only one heading of that corporation. I THINK the vast majority of people are only watching ESPN for live sports. Other content has to matter a tiny amount, and besides live sports rights they are paying the other content voices (and at least a couple of live sports voices, e.g. Buck and Aikman) exorbitant salaries. Just not sustainable. I wish they were firing other people, just on an ideological basis, but Disney values what they value.

I would just say this is happening everywhere in entertainment. Warner Discovery to Paramount to Netflix, 2023 has been the year of slashing costs. Corporations finally started to say “hey I thought at some point streaming is supposed to be profitable, right?”. The fact is everyone raced head first into streaming with no real plan to make money, they only had a plan to grow an audience. That idiotic approach is now coming back to bite them in the ***.

Good point. And mix in that Disney's last several movies have not been nearly as successful as they would have hoped.

What? Guardians is like the 2nd biggest film of the year. Over 800 box office I think. I remember reading the little mermaid did well too.

Little mermaid struggling to break even. Still not there yet and probably won't make it. Guardians 3 did well as a movie but not as a marvel movie.

It’s made half a billion. No way is that break even.

It's budget is $250m. The rule is usually double that for marketing as that's not included in the budget for making the movie. Then take 40% that goes to the theaters from the gross. So of the $500m, the studio gets about $300m so far. They have a ways to go to break even.

 

[Doug B]

They’re going to have start getting practical with movie budgets, then. Hard to believe fantastic movies can’t be made for $100 - $150 million.

 

[Tom Servo]

I won't go into the Disney "woke" stuff, but I think it's impossible to see these moves without considering the overall economics of Disney corporate, even understanding this is only one heading of that corporation. I THINK the vast majority of people are only watching ESPN for live sports. Other content has to matter a tiny amount, and besides live sports rights they are paying the other content voices (and at least a couple of live sports voices, e.g. Buck and Aikman) exorbitant salaries. Just not sustainable. I wish they were firing other people, just on an ideological basis, but Disney values what they value.

I would just say this is happening everywhere in entertainment. Warner Discovery to Paramount to Netflix, 2023 has been the year of slashing costs. Corporations finally started to say “hey I thought at some point streaming is supposed to be profitable, right?”. The fact is everyone raced head first into streaming with no real plan to make money, they only had a plan to grow an audience. That idiotic approach is now coming back to bite them in the ***.

Good point. And mix in that Disney's last several movies have not been nearly as successful as they would have hoped.

What? Guardians is like the 2nd biggest film of the year. Over 800 box office I think. I remember reading the little mermaid did well too.

Little mermaid struggling to break even. Still not there yet and probably won't make it. Guardians 3 did well as a movie but not as a marvel movie.

It’s made half a billion. No way is that break even.

Its budget is $250m. The rule is usually double that for marketing as that's not included in the budget for making the movie. Then take 40% that goes to the theaters from the gross. So of the $500m, the studio gets about $300m so far. They have a ways to go to break even.

The 40% return to Disney is just for America. Europe is like 25% and China is 15%. The main point still stands that just because a movie makes $500 million doesn’t mean it made money.

 

[Tom Servo]

They’re going to have start getting practical with movie budgets, then. Hard to believe fantastic movies can’t be made for $100 - $150 million.

A lot of that is reshoots. Indy 5 was delayed a year and went through massive edits and a reshot ending a year after it initially wrapped. That doesn’t include time lost when Harrison Ford fell off a horse and hurt himself. HF got $20 million to do the movie.

 

[Ilov80s]

They’re going to have start getting practical with movie budgets, then. Hard to believe fantastic movies can’t be made for $100 - $150 million.

Of course they can. It just becomes difficult when the movies they want to make are basically wall to wall CGI.

 

[rockaction]

Of course they can. It just becomes difficult when the movies they want to make are basically wall to wall CGI.

Isn't that partially to make money in international markets where English is not spoken or is a second language at best? In other words, they're investing capital to chase that coveted revenue stream, which in turn begets a bad cycle of chasing the money.

 

[massraider]

They’re going to have start getting practical with movie budgets, then. Hard to believe fantastic movies can’t be made for $100 - $150 million.

A lot of that is reshoots. Indy 5 was delayed a year and went through massive edits and a reshot ending a year after it initially wrapped. That doesn’t include time lost when Harrison Ford fell off a horse and hurt himself. HF got $20 million to do the movie.

This statement makes me think the people dispensing the money might be making bad decisions.

 

[Ilov80s]

Of course they can. It just becomes difficult when the movies they want to make are basically wall to wall CGI.

Isn't that partially to make money in international markets where English is not spoken or is a second language at best? In other words, they're investing capital to chase that coveted revenue stream, which in turn begets a bad cycle of chasing the money.

That’s certainly part of it. Visual spectacle plays well across language barriers. However in doing so, I think they have played a role in rendering for people what kind of movie they will see in a theater. It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

 

[rockaction]

I think they have played a role in rendering for people what kind of movie they will see in a theater

Oh, certainly, and it's not for the better, IMO.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

These days it's all about launch angles.

 

[rockaction]

These days it's all about launch angles.

Flat bats and line drives, son. Rub a little dirt on it and bunt the man over to second.

 

[MAC_32]

It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

These days it's all about launch angles.

It's starting to change this year. Half the league is hitting 250+ whereas it was just a handful the last couple seasons. SB is on a trajectory we haven't seen in a decade. Still too many k's though.

 

[Ilov80s]

It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

These days it's all about launch angles.

It's starting to change this year. Half the league is hitting 250+ whereas it was just a handful the last couple seasons. SB is on a trajectory we haven't seen in a decade. Still too many k's though.

And wouldn’t you know it, MLB attendance is up

 

[Insein]

They’re going to have start getting practical with movie budgets, then. Hard to believe fantastic movies can’t be made for $100 - $150 million.

A lot of that is reshoots. Indy 5 was delayed a year and went through massive edits and a reshot ending a year after it initially wrapped. That doesn’t include time lost when Harrison Ford fell off a horse and hurt himself. HF got $20 million to do the movie.

This statement makes me think the people dispensing the money might be making bad decisions.

That is basically 99% of the problem. A lot of stupid people making decisions right now.

 

[Grahamburn]

It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

These days it's all about launch angles.

It's starting to change this year. Half the league is hitting 250+ whereas it was just a handful the last couple seasons. SB is on a trajectory we haven't seen in a decade. Still too many k's though.

And wouldn’t you know it, MLB attendance is up

The new rules have made it infinitely more watchable.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

These days it's all about launch angles.

It's starting to change this year. Half the league is hitting 250+ whereas it was just a handful the last couple seasons. SB is on a trajectory we haven't seen in a decade. Still too many k's though.

And wouldn’t you know it, MLB attendance is up

The new rules have made it infinitely more watchable.

Pitch clock is great. Now all we need are robot umps.

 

[kupcho1]

It's budget is $250m. The rule is usually double that for marketing as that's not included in the budget for making the movie. Then take 40% that goes to the theaters from the gross. So of the $500m, the studio gets about $300m so far. They have a ways to go to break even.

My understanding (care of The Critical Drinker) is that marketing is ~50% and studio take is ~50% (rough numbers here).
Estimated cost for Indy 5 is around $300M
Marketing at $150M
So if total cost is $450M all-in (and there is some question as to whether or not actual costs exceeded $300M) then Indy 5 needs $900M to break even. (Likely more as the take isn't quite that high overseas.)

Shareholders aren't looking for breakeven. At - insert pinkie into corner of mouth - 1 BILLION DOLLARS, they're looking at a 22% return.
Throw in time value of money and all that, and I don't think any champagne corks will be popping when all is said and dead. There should be heads rolling

 

[massraider]

Shareholders aren't looking for breakeven. At - insert pinkie into corner of mouth - 1 BILLION DOLLARS, they're looking at a 22% return.

Yep. You can make a nice little movie for 20 mill, and maybe it does 80 mill, and that's great, but that doesn't put a yacht in the driveway.

 

[Insein]

Shareholders aren't looking for breakeven. At - insert pinkie into corner of mouth - 1 BILLION DOLLARS, they're looking at a 22% return.

Yep. You can make a nice little movie for 20 mill, and maybe it does 80 mill, and that's great, but that doesn't put a yacht in the driveway.

They probably should take 7 or 8 shots at a $20m movie and maybe get a surprise hit that makes back enough for all the others. Better than making one terrible movie that cost $200m+.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

I'm sure people here know a lot more about it than me but it just seems like the numbers don't add up with a lot of movies that are generally considered successes. For instance X-Men First Class did $350M worldwide on a $160M budget and they greenlit a bunch of sequels immediately after seeing that. Only 1 of the 4 Godzilla movies did triple the budget (and that one only barely) yet they kept pumping them out.

Also just looking through the numbers of highest grossing films and budgets, the return on the Fast and Furious franchise is just outlandishly ridiculous. Holy cow why does Universal even bother making any other movies?

 

[kupcho1]

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

Iron Man, which cost about $150M to make and $75M to market has taken in $585.8M (I don't know if this takes into account any broadcast/streaming revenue, which could have occurred prior to Disney purchasing Marvel) since inception.

So, $225 cost * 2 (i.e., Marvel got half the box office) would give one a $450M break even figure. So, Iron Man made ~$140M. Not a bad return at all on $225M. (And ignores - in addition to streaming/broadcast - establishing a brand/MEU.

Now, these days the returns aren't anywhere near that level (I believe). But then again the stories haven't been as good. They're still profit motivated despite all appearances to the contrary (e.g., taking shortcuts on special effects which any paying customer can see).

 

[GroveDiesel]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

I'm sure people here know a lot more about it than me but it just seems like the numbers don't add up with a lot of movies that are generally considered successes. For instance X-Men First Class did $350M worldwide on a $160M budget and they greenlit a bunch of sequels immediately after seeing that. Only 1 of the 4 Godzilla movies did triple the budget (and that one only barely) yet they kept pumping them out.

Also just looking through the numbers of highest grossing films and budgets, the return on the Fast and Furious franchise is just outlandishly ridiculous. Holy cow why does Universal even bother making any other movies?

How Hollywood accounting works.

Basically the tldr version is that the studio sets up a corporation for each movie. The corporations then end up financial losers because the studio charges the corporation they setup for that movie all sorts of bogus distribution/marketing/etc fees. So the movie ends up a financial loser while the studio takes in all the profits.

 

[kupcho1]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

I'm sure people here know a lot more about it than me but it just seems like the numbers don't add up with a lot of movies that are generally considered successes. For instance X-Men First Class did $350M worldwide on a $160M budget and they greenlit a bunch of sequels immediately after seeing that. Only 1 of the 4 Godzilla movies did triple the budget (and that one only barely) yet they kept pumping them out.

Also just looking through the numbers of highest grossing films and budgets, the return on the Fast and Furious franchise is just outlandishly ridiculous. Holy cow why does Universal even bother making any other movies?

How Hollywood accounting works.

Basically the tldr version is that the studio sets up a corporation for each movie. The corporations then end up financial losers because the studio charges the corporation they setup for that movie all sorts of bogus distribution/marketing/etc fees. So the movie ends up a financial loser while the studio takes in all the profits.

And who owns these corporations?

 

[massraider]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

Right, and not even considering the plastic crap that parents will be buying for the kiddies.

Even when something is a flop, and barely breaks even, or even loses money, the potential billion dollar payday for having a hit blockbuster is worth the risk. You cannot make comic book movie money with romantic comedies, or political thrillers. And you don't sell one toy or Halloween costume.

The big reason I think these movies are here to stay: Anyone know any comic book types? People who are into comics, and other kinds of 'nerdy' (for lack of a better term) entertainment? They ain't going anywhere. Hardcore, and nothing they would rather spend their money on.

 

[FairWarning]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

Right, and not even considering the plastic crap that parents will be buying for the kiddies.

Even when something is a flop, and barely breaks even, or even loses money, the potential billion dollar payday for having a hit blockbuster is worth the risk. You cannot make comic book movie money with romantic comedies, or political thrillers. And you don't sell one toy or Halloween costume.

The big reason I think these movies are here to stay: Anyone know any comic book types? People who are into comics, and other kinds of 'nerdy' (for lack of a better term) entertainment? They ain't going anywhere. Hardcore, and nothing they would rather spend their money on.

It’s hard to even make comedies without offending anymore.

 

[Gr00vus]

What would Jeff VanGundy's Star Wars character name be?

Grabba Foot?
Dork Sillious?

 

[massraider]

It’s hard to even make comedies without offending anymore.

The state of comedy movies these days is terrible, and I am convinced this is the reason.

 

[dickey moe]

Based on what I've read in here, it seems that exploding marketing costs have significantly affected the bottom line.

 

[facook]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

Right, and not even considering the plastic crap that parents will be buying for the kiddies.

Even when something is a flop, and barely breaks even, or even loses money, the potential billion dollar payday for having a hit blockbuster is worth the risk. You cannot make comic book movie money with romantic comedies, or political thrillers. And you don't sell one toy or Halloween costume.

The big reason I think these movies are here to stay: Anyone know any comic book types? People who are into comics, and other kinds of 'nerdy' (for lack of a better term) entertainment? They ain't going anywhere. Hardcore, and nothing they would rather spend their money on.

It’s hard to even make comedies without offending anymore.

It’s hard to even make comedies without offending anymore.

The state of comedy movies these days is terrible, and I am convinced this is the reason.

Will I get a T.O. or cancelled if I point out that Blazing Saddles is still extremely funny?

 

[rockaction]

The state of comedy movies these days is terrible, and I am convinced this is the reason.

I believe I said this and it got called a "lazy analysis" by someone. I remember quotes like that. And I like the person, too, it's just there was nothing lazy about saying that the risk of offending somebody, especially seeing Hollywood's and the entertainment industry's stance about offensive comedy, is partially the reason behind the state of comedies today. That reasoning is more like spot-on.

 

[massraider]

BREAKING: CEO Bob Iger Considering Selling Streaming Services and Other Assets, May Even Try to Sell Entire Disney Company - WDW News Today

Disney CEO Bob Iger is looking to sell some of the company's TV and streaming assets, and may be considering selling the entire company.

wdwnt.com

Disney could be making some moves

 

[Desert_Power]

Do you think any executive at ESPN thinks about how their insistence on throwing a minute ad on every video on their website impacts engagement or their ability to tell stories about sports?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The state of comedy movies these days is terrible, and I am convinced this is the reason.

I believe I said this and it got called a "lazy analysis" by someone. I remember quotes like that. And I like the person, too, it's just there was nothing lazy about saying that the risk of offending somebody, especially seeing Hollywood's and the entertainment industry's stance about offensive comedy, is hardly a lazy analysis. More like spot-on.

I really have no idea, but I think it's fair to point out the summer comedy release this year was called "The Blackening" and the entire movie was caricaturizing streotypes, so it's not like they're scared of boundaries. If anything, they leaned into it TOO much and it got predictable and derivative.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Iger says ESPN stand-alone streaming service will launch in 2025

 

[massraider]

Weird:

ESPN submitted fake names to secure Emmys

the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS), the organization that administers the Emmys, uncovered a scheme that the network used to acquire more than 30 of the coveted statuettes for on-air talent ineligible to receive them. Since at least 2010, ESPN inserted fake names in Emmy entries, then took the awards won by some of those imaginary individuals, had them re-engraved and gave them to on-air personalities.

Kirk Herbstreit, Lee Corso, Chris Fowler, Desmond Howard and Samantha Ponder, among others, were given the ill-gotten Emmys, according to a source briefed on the matter, who was granted anonymity because the individual is not authorized to discuss it publicly. There is no evidence that the on-air individuals were aware the Emmys given to them were improperly obtained.

“I think it was really crummy what they did to me and others,” said Smith, who worked at ESPN from 1997 until her contract expired last July.

The fraud was discovered by NATAS, which prompted an investigation by that organization and later by ESPN. Those probes resulted in sanctions beyond the return of the trophies. While it is not known who orchestrated the scheme, Craig Lazarus, vice president and executive producer of original content and features, and Lee Fitting, a senior vice president of production who oversaw “College GameDay” and other properties, were among the ESPN employees NATAS ruled ineligible from future participation in the Emmys.

In a statement, ESPN said: “Some members of our team were clearly wrong in submitting certain names that may go back to 1997 in Emmy categories where they were not eligible for recognition or statuettes. This was a misguided attempt to recognize on-air individuals who were important members of our production team. Once current leadership was made aware, we apologized to NATAS for violating guidelines and worked closely with them to completely overhaul our submission process to safeguard against anything like this happening again.


“We brought in outside counsel to conduct a full and thorough investigation and individuals found to be responsible were disciplined by ESPN.”

Adam Sharp, of NATAS, said in an email: “NATAS identified a number of fictitious credits submitted by ESPN to multiple Sports Emmys competitions. When brought to the attention of ESPN senior management, the network took steps to take responsibility for the actions of its personnel, to investigate thoroughly, and to course correct. These steps have included the return by ESPN of statuettes issued to fictitious individuals and commitments to implement further internal accountability and procedural changes at the network.”

An ESPN spokesperson said Lazarus declined to comment, and Lazarus didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. Fitting was let go by ESPN in August after 25 years at the company. He did not respond to voice and text messages.

The nexus of the scheme was “College GameDay,” the show that Fitting helped turn into a cultural phenomenon and a revenue machine. From 2008-18, it nabbed eight Emmys for outstanding weekly studio show. But on-air talent was, until 2023, prohibited by NATAS guidelines from being included in a credit list in that category. Hosts, analysts and reporters on “College GameDay” could win individual awards, such as outstanding host, studio analyst or emerging on-air talent, and they could win for an individual feature. But they were not eligible to take home a trophy for a win by the show. That rule was meant to prevent front-facing talent from winning two awards for the same work (termed “double-dipping” in the NATAS rulebook).

 

[massraider]

ESPN circumvented the rule by inserting fake names into the credit list it submitted to NATAS for “College GameDay.” The Athletic reviewed the credit lists for the years the show won: 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In each one of those seven years, names similar to the names of on-air personalities – and with identical initials – were listed all under the title of “associate producers.”


Kirk Henry (Kirk Herbstreit), Lee Clark (Lee Corso), Dirk Howard (Desmond Howard), and Tim Richard (Tom Rinaldi) appeared in all seven years. Steven Ponder (Sam Ponder) and Gene Wilson (Gene Wojciechowski) appeared in five from 2014-18. Chris Fulton (Chris Fowler) appeared in 2010, 2011, 2014 and 2015. Shelley Saunders (Shelley Smith) appeared in the 2010 credit list. Smith was also given an Emmy for the show’s win in 2008, though it is unclear how that statuette was obtained; Shelley Saunders was not listed in the 2008 credit list viewed by The Athletic. However, networks are allowed to modify a credit list after a show is announced as a winner.

 

[jobarules]

I wouldn't use ESPN to create my fake name for passports seeing those names.

 

[Charlie Steiner]

I wouldn't use ESPN to create my fake name for passports seeing those names.

Fake names based on ESPN are the worst.

 

[massraider]

ESPN has had an exciting couple of weeks

 

[Pip's Invitation]

ESPN has had an exciting couple of weeks

I figured this bump was gonna be about the McAfee thing, but that's probably too political for this board.

 

[massraider]

I figured this bump was gonna be about the McAfee thing, but that's probably too political for this board.

I thought about it, but probably a convo no one would enjoy.

But I think everyone can get on board on dunking on ESPN execs.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

ESPN circumvented the rule by inserting fake names into the credit list it submitted to NATAS for “College GameDay.” The Athletic reviewed the credit lists for the years the show won: 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In each one of those seven years, names similar to the names of on-air personalities – and with identical initials – were listed all under the title of “associate producers.”


Kirk Henry (Kirk Herbstreit), Lee Clark (Lee Corso), Dirk Howard (Desmond Howard), and Tim Richard (Tom Rinaldi) appeared in all seven years. Steven Ponder (Sam Ponder) and Gene Wilson (Gene Wojciechowski) appeared in five from 2014-18. Chris Fulton (Chris Fowler) appeared in 2010, 2011, 2014 and 2015. Shelley Saunders (Shelley Smith) appeared in the 2010 credit list. Smith was also given an Emmy for the show’s win in 2008, though it is unclear how that statuette was obtained; Shelley Saunders was not listed in the 2008 credit list viewed by The Athletic. However, networks are allowed to modify a credit list after a show is announced as a winner.

We probably should've known something was up when Hingle Mccringleberry won an emmy.

 

[massraider]

We probably should've known something was up when Hingle Mccringleberry won an emmy.

Oh, I think you'll like this

 

[Runkle]

I wouldn't use ESPN to create my fake name for passports seeing those names.

Might have to dig my Ron Mexico jersey out of the closet

 

[Ghost Rider]

ESPN has had an exciting couple of weeks

I figured this bump was gonna be about the McAfee thing, but that's probably too political for this board.

I figured it was about the slap fight between Screaming A and Whitlock.

 

[General Malaise]

I don't get it. How do you award a statue to a person who doesn't exist?

 

[Eephus]

ESPN has had an exciting couple of weeks

I figured this bump was gonna be about the McAfee thing, but that's probably too political for this board.

I figured it was about the slap fight between Screaming A and Whitlock.

I figured it wasn't going to have anything to do with sports