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!
The Rise and Fall of ESPN (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe T
- Start date
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
the days of the "kick-###" "old school" sportscenter are over people. anything you need to see you google immediately and someone has a video up on twitter.
comfortably numb
Footballguy
All of us keep saying the content on ESPN is garbage but is there any show that they can air that would make you tune in at a specific day and time?
Whether it's Jamil, Stephen A, skip whatever...
I don't think anything they put in will make me want to watch any more than I do now.
My attention is just no longer there for it to be something I look forward too.
Whether it's Jamil, Stephen A, skip whatever...
I don't think anything they put in will make me want to watch any more than I do now.
My attention is just no longer there for it to be something I look forward too.
GoBirds
Footballguy
30 for 30, College Gameday and the My Wish segments is all I got. Only Gameday you really have to tune in for.
culdeus
Footballguy
There is absolutely no evidence the non live sports programming has hurt ESPN in the slightest. If you look at cord cutting stats it has been by and large non-sports fan millennials so far.
When sports fans start leaving at the same rate, then there is a serious issue. They are hurt plenty by the non-sports fan departure as it is and the greying of the cable buyer in general.
GoBirds
Footballguy
You can claim there is no evidence but it's obvious it's a factor on some level, one of there own anchors that worked there 20 plus years came out and said it. Not worth arguing over though, that's your opinion and you seem adamant about defending it and that's fine.
Riversco
Footballguy
Eh, it can also be too much work to google to try to find something I want to see. Sometimes I can't find what I want on google. In the end, just having an on-demand version of Sportscenter playing in the background while I do other stuff might be best.
culdeus
Footballguy
It's not really an opinion, it's more a fact, people tuning out of ESPN does nothing to their bottom line. People cancelling cable because honey boo boo is off the air does far more damage (100s and 100s of X more) than a cable subscriber not watching sports center because their feelings are hurt. There are lots of market studies out there, many of them linked in here and the cable cutting thread here that explains exactly the economics of what is happening and why ESPN was ####ed no matter what their content looked like.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
GoBirds
Footballguy
Sure as stated before there are definitely other factors but stating that content has no bearing we can agree to disagree. All good.
SFBayDuck
Footballguy
GoBirds said:
The politics aren't the issue. They repeatedly told Schilling to stop and he kept doing it. So, just like Simmons who had received multiple warnings about non-political issues but kept picking that Goodell scab, at some point enough is enough.
And I agree with most of the sentiment here - Gameday, 30 for 30, the Rusillo Show (#freerusillo), and SVP are pretty much all that's left out side of live sports that's compelling. Oh, and when I'm in a hotel room, I'll put on ESPN over the local news in most cities when I'm on the road.
Binky The Doormat
Footballguy
Every ESPN talk show is worse than awful.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
I feel dirty for saying this, but i use the ESPN app to check scores and box scores.
Open to something different.
Open to something different.
Can someone share for me what Jemele Hill said that wasn't true? I honestly can't find it. She said that Trump is a bigot and a white supremacist who has surrounded himself with like minded white supremacists. Is that what people are up in arms about? If so, I don't get where any of that isn't demonstrably true.
There must be something more. Right?
There must be something more. Right?
MattFancy
Footballguy
So I'm definitely left leaning. However, I do think it's odd that ESPN suspended Simmons for saying Goodell needs to be fired, yet Hill calls the President a white supremacist and nothing happens. Both opinions were accurate, but one went after the all mighty NFL and the other after the President.
Boston
Footballguy
As Linda Cohn said politics is a piece of the puzzle...I think everyone wants a nice-neat explanation for this but it is a variety of issues...from the business-part to the content and yes to the politics...they are still a monster but I do believe they are one without much loyalty...I think if better alternatives arise many viewers will gladly move on...
MattFancy
Footballguy
TLEF316
Footballguy
You really think TRUTH is the issue here?
She's a high profile face of the network now and she made a public statement that reflects poorly on the company and could potentially alienate a large portion of their viewership.
You cant just say whatever you want on your twitter when your statements could possibly affect the livelihood of others, regardless of whether its true. That's not how the world works.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Have you watched an NFL game recently? I think literally every single commercial is targeted to this demographic.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I suspect there's at least some truth to all of the various reasons people are advancing for why ESPN is fading, but this is the biggest one for me. The whole idea of watching a television show that tells me stuff I could have just pulled off the internet on my own is kind of a weird concept in this day and age. I literally can't recall the last time I watched a sports show that wasn't a live game.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
NFL is a business partner, Trump is not.MattFancy said:
RUSF18
Footballguy
Do you still watch PTI and ATH today?TLEF316 said:
What do you watch in place of First Take at 10am? (I likely know the answer to this, but play along)
They have HOURS of non-live sports programming to fill everyday across a variety of networks (I watch none of it, FWIW). The best method they've come up with in filling that time is to basically have one set of talking heads debate an issue and come up with their takes, and then another show a couple hours later responds to those takes, and another opines on that...all while driving tweets and clicks and all that fun stuff. It's a self-made and re-generating cycle that works to fill a whole lot of air time. Can you think of a better way to fill all those hours? I sure can't.
The Six is a whole separate issue because no one has the need anymore for the 6pm Sportscenter that we all grew up with. That was a pretty difficult issue to solve.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
This is really the crux of the issue. I think the real issue people 35+ have is that ESPN/2 went from re-runs of niche sports during the day (Timbersport, World's Strongest Man, poker) to purely talk. Even the newer non-big 4 sports that they own in some manner (Drone racing, e-sports, X-Games, etc.) they don't show re-runs during the day. I think at its heart that's the real issue people have.
I'd also guess that the talk shows get better ratings and are cheaper to produce.
TLEF316
Footballguy
To answer your questions....
I almost never watch PTI or ATH. (Or anything in that time slot)
Im never in front of a tv at 10 am
Again, I totally get that they had to try something and that social media driven talking head shows might be the easiest/cheapest way to fill air time. I guess I just hate the fact that idiots like skip Bayless and Stephen A smith get to become millionaires for being professional trolls.
belljr
Footballguy
For me - it's not political talk per se. It's the constant over the top coverage of "whatever issue is hot", talking heads giving opinions on any and everything. Even during Sportscenter.
I don't need to hear "insert some host/former player" go on and on about some 30 second highlight.
When they really lost me is when the started doing the mixed "highlights". I know why they did it (to try to entice you to watch the whole show)
But before - I knew football would be the first 10-15 minutes, baseball the next, hockey the next, basketball etc etc add some other segment.
Or maybe I just don't care as much anymore
I don't need to hear "insert some host/former player" go on and on about some 30 second highlight.
When they really lost me is when the started doing the mixed "highlights". I know why they did it (to try to entice you to watch the whole show)
But before - I knew football would be the first 10-15 minutes, baseball the next, hockey the next, basketball etc etc add some other segment.
Or maybe I just don't care as much anymore
RUSF18
Footballguy
So don't you think that going from watching those shows religiously in your 20s to virtually never now says more about you and your viewing habits?
Trust me, I'm the same way. Kid at home, long workday, other things going on, etc. It's not really difficult to understand why things have changed but it still seems hard to grasp for a lot of people, and I'm not sure why. Just gripping to nostalgia?
What do you think would happen if you asked a 16 year old why they don't watch the hour long 6pm Sportscenter anymore? Do you think the response would be anything more meaningful than "why the #### would I?"
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe T
Footballguy
She is lecturing about white privilege while she is a news anchor on the #1 sports network in the #1 news time slot and happens to be black. She seems bright.
Sand
Footballguy
There is no doubt that ESPN over payed for a large number of these content items - certainly a big part of their problem. There was an announcer who got fired for mentioning that - I forget who.
I don't think the current kerfuffle helps things. What the typical viewer sees is Hill getting absolutely nothing while Hank Williams got instantly fired for the exact same thing. (Schilling had gotten multiple warnings, etc., so he's a bit different case).
Joe T
Footballguy
culdeus
Footballguy
Because streaming services provide a compelling argument at a fraction of the cost of cable?
I mean the single only reason I wavered on cutting the cord was ESPN and regional Fox Sports. For others that aren't sports fans I can only imagine their decision process is much simplified.
Joe T
Footballguy
I agree.
The compelling argument streaming is a fraction of the cost and (a lot) less garbage networks.
People are cutting the cord because cable is expensive and forces 200 channels on you when you only need a handful of channels. And cable is generally one of the worst services in the world. They don't give a crap about customer service at all. I'm having a difficult time thinking of an industry with worse customer service.
GoBirds
Footballguy
Linda Cohn I think is who you are thinking of, she had basically been with ESPN from the start. Definitely over 20 years.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
This. Cable bill is roughly $120 a month without HBO. I can go to DirecTV now for $50 a month, lose CBS and SNY, but gain HBO since I use ATT wireless. If wifi worked in our building at all, I'd already be out the door.
Mile High
Footballguy
Sammy3469
Footballguy
More like wifi...Oh and it looks like Hulu is only $40 a month with all the local channels and 50GB DVR
TLEF316
Footballguy
At the end of the day, the rise of twitter and other instant access platforms probably killed any chance of ESPN staying at their previous level.
But i just don't know who actually DOES enjoy their current program. I mean....are college students and others in their early-mid 20's just DYING to watch First Take every day? Again, my brothers are both younger than me (29 and 24) and neither one of them can stand that garbage either. And as far as I know, everyone they knew feels generally the same way.
It just sort of seems like they cast aside what used to be their core audience and came up with new ideas that NOBODY seems to like.
Their strategy is basically "Lets have people say dumb stuff so people click on our website". That's REALLY sad for an organization that is supposed to be (or at least used to be) the top journalistic voice in their field.
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Posted in the Clay Travis thread too but Mike Soltys, who is a VP at ESPN, is tweeting the number of boob references that Clay Travis makes on the radio this morning.
Yes, a VP at ESPN has Squissy level thin skin and is choosing to listen to Clay Travis over his own networks programming, giving Travis free advertising, whining about boobs when his own company produces ESPN the Body magazine, and totally embarrassing himself online.
It's quite easy to see why this company keeps screwing things up.
Yes, a VP at ESPN has Squissy level thin skin and is choosing to listen to Clay Travis over his own networks programming, giving Travis free advertising, whining about boobs when his own company produces ESPN the Body magazine, and totally embarrassing himself online.
It's quite easy to see why this company keeps screwing things up.
culdeus
Footballguy
I'm curious what people think ESPN should fill their programming with. If you remove "Hot Takes Served Fresh Daily" and also realize that SportsCenter is an obsolete product you have to fill it back in with something. What would you have them do? 30 for 30 all day? Get the H&G property brothers to sell NFL players homes? Fishing with TO? What?
Mile High
Footballguy
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
When local CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX affiliates run infomercials during weekend afternoons, ESPN could do something similar through the week.
Let's face it, from 9 AM to 5 PM is the equivalent of overnight for ESPN or any sports station.
Warrior
Footballguy
For starters, they could talk about sports, rather than social issues and celebrity gossip.
MattFancy
Footballguy
But people don't want to hear about sports 24/7, at least not anymore. ESPN has tried to make sports a 24/7 thing, but it just isn't. Outside of the actual games, people don't want to sit around and listen to "Expert A" say that this team could have done this better, while "Expert B" says they should have done this instead. There's only so much sports news that happens throughout the day that ESPN has to drum up interest in stuff to get people interested. No one cares anymore when they can just go on Twitter, any website, etc and find out that info much quicker without listening to a bunch of screaming idiots tell you their opinions.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
They should be showing more events and less talk shows. Doesn't really matter which events. Bowling, soccer, strongest man in the world, old Kiana Tom workout episodes - anything where people are actually doing some sports related thing rather than talking about inane minutia and stuff tangentially related to sports. Save the screaming and outrage for the political folks. The only time people want to be agitated by sports is when their team loses/sucks, not when Steven A Smith is yelling at top volume for no good reason.
RUSF18
Footballguy
If more people felt like you and me, they would do just that. But they're part of a public company who answers to shareholders, who want to see profits, and for some reason this works.
RC94
Footballguy
Tackling Dummies
Footballguy
SPORTS SHOUTING!
The Tracy Morgan spoof is dead on and the panel shows have gots to go.
Stephen A Smiff & Teddy Atlas
The Tracy Morgan spoof is dead on and the panel shows have gots to go.
Stephen A Smiff & Teddy Atlas
Capella
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
They need more fantasy sports programming for sure. They also should have a regional time block. I am in Wisconsin. I would definitely tune in to hear and see highlights of local teams.
You dont need a sideline reporter to be at every event and have a camera crew. Just get the videos submitted. Tell the schools you need 6 highlights from the event and it needs to be edited together with commentary. You also need a box score and one quote from each coach. You tell them if the video footage is edited properly, it will be aired. If the commentary is good, it will be used. If it isnt good, then the regional host will do the commentary. Promise to give one person a job at the end of every season and whatever school he comes from a grant and/or a scholarship to award. Easily an hour a day there.
You could also have premium content that you need to be a member to watch. I am not talking about a paid site. It would be free, but you could keep it exclusive. You could put footage of college practices on there. The people that watch this would basically give you a show. How cool would it be after the dust settles on bowl season to see practice footage of a play followed by the real footage? Your team gets a pick six in a big game and then there is corresponding practice footage where the scout team was running plays they thought the other team would run and the pass is picked off by the same guy in practice? Your premium content viewers would give you this road map to easily edit this. the comments section would be filled with stuff like this...
Wetbutt23: At 37:40 in this clip they are practicing the exact play they got the pick six against NC!
Katieperrysbootiehole: At 48:23 you can see where they practice the pick play that scored against FSU!
You see all these stupid next gen stats these days. Well what bout some actual cool stats? How about showing the data and decision making involved with shifting the infield one way and shifting the outfield another? The best part about this is you dont need ex-players. Overpaid windbags.
There is a nation of kids that dont give a crap about production quality as they watch youtube all the time and they don't really care what some old defensive lineman has to say nor do they believe that he is some kind of authority(which lets be honest they often dont know squat) since they are used to a mindset of "I can just google it." Might as well embrace it and use it.
