The Rise and Fall of ESPN (1 Viewer)

[Wu-banger]

I never understood why people liked her or how she rose in thr espn ranks. I couldn’t stand her when she was just an espn page 2 contributor many years ago. 

Agree 100% ...could not stand her in any medium... awful written, on radio , and on TV ... good riddance. ........and def don't care about her , or any other sports personality politically.

 

[Charlie Steiner]

Link to article

There is a lesson in this for all those who are in the trenches in the political forum. This person lost a $2.5 million a year contract in order to argue about politics. And guess what. Not a single person has said to her, "You know what. You're right. I see the light now. I'm switching sides." After all this, the best she can hope for is a pay cut to be a pundit on CNN or MSNBC, But how sustainable is that? Once someone less divisive is in the White House, will she be needed. Without Trump to spar with, will anyone pay to see Hill spar?

She'll always have speaking at colleges/universities to fall back on.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I never understood why people liked her or how she rose in thr espn ranks. I couldn’t stand her when she was just an espn page 2 contributor many years ago. 

To me this was part of the disaster of ESPN, not her specifically, but as a whole that political persona bull####. Stick with sports, report sports, keep it to sports. Sometimes I understand there might be a few things that cross over and are hard to avoid, but don't report a political opinion and minimize your reporting of it. 

They bet people would want politics and sports mixed, they bet wildly incorrect, and they made this bet as cord cutting was picking up a lot of steam and the tide was already moving against them. I grew up on ESPN and they lost me over the last few years. 

 

[TheFanatic]

She'll always have speaking at colleges/universities to fall back on.

How lucrative do you think that will be? And for how long? Once Trump is no longer in the white house, what does she do?

 

[TheFanatic]

To me this was part of the disaster of ESPN, not her specifically, but as a whole that political persona bull####. Stick with sports, report sports, keep it to sports. Sometimes I understand there might be a few things that cross over and are hard to avoid, but don't report a political opinion and minimize your reporting of it. 

They bet people would want politics and sports mixed, they bet wildly incorrect, and they made this bet as cord cutting was picking up a lot of steam and the tide was already moving against them. I grew up on ESPN and they lost me over the last few years. 

And while they are cutting this cord, at the same time they hired Olberman back. I haven't seen anything Hill tweeted, but I've seen some of the stuff he tweets. Doesn't seem like they are truly committed to being out of politics. 

 

[fantasycurse42]

How lucrative do you think that will be? And for how long? Once Trump is no longer in the white house, what does she do?

I dislike Hill as much as the next guy, but honestly, from a solely financial perspective she is set. Wasn't her talent, but the luck of having some blind people at the wheel at ESPN, she was one of the beneficiaries. 

 

[TheFanatic]

I dislike Hill as much as the next guy, but honestly, from a solely financial perspective she is set. Wasn't her talent, but the luck of having some blind people at the wheel at ESPN, she was one of the beneficiaries. 

How could you know this? MC Hammer was set for generations and he went bankrupt. None of know how much she spends. She may assume she's going to be just fine and nab a job at CNN hosting prime time right away and blow the check she just got. 

 

[ShamrockPride]

Link to article

There is a lesson in this for all those who are in the trenches in the political forum. This person lost a $2.5 million a year contract in order to argue about politics. And guess what. Not a single person has said to her, "You know what. You're right. I see the light now. I'm switching sides." After all this, the best she can hope for is a pay cut to be a pundit on CNN or MSNBC, But how sustainable is that? Once someone less divisive is in the White House, will she be needed. Without Trump to spar with, will anyone pay to see Hill spar?

PREACH

 

[Epic Problem]

How could you know this? MC Hammer was set for generations and he went bankrupt. None of know how much she spends. She may assume she's going to be just fine and nab a job at CNN hosting prime time right away and blow the check she just got. 

And you don't know what her buyout is. 

 

[Charlie Steiner]

How lucrative do you think that will be? And for how long? Once Trump is no longer in the white house, what does she do?

I don't know how much it pays, but I think there will always be money to be made in controversy and racial politics.

 

[fantasycurse42]

How could you know this? MC Hammer was set for generations and he went bankrupt. None of know how much she spends. She may assume she's going to be just fine and nab a job at CNN hosting prime time right away and blow the check she just got. 

Wow, you actually dislike her more than I do, that's pretty impressive bc I really don't like the woman. 

She'll always have a role speaking at some very liberal university, maybe an opportunity to host a show on something like MSNBC, contributing for places like HuffPost, etc...

She'll prob venture out to do her own thing, fail since she is awful, and then fall back on one of the aforementioned. She has prob already cleared $10MM-$15MM in the last couple of years and she isn't some uneducated athlete who will blow it on hookers, bling, & cars. 

Be happy she is out of the spotlight and her drivel won't be forced down your throat while trying to catch a sports highlight.

 

[TheFanatic]

I don't know how much it pays, but I think there will always be money to be made in controversy and racial politics.

I agree on that point, but to the degree of $2.5 million a year? I doubt it. Not unless your name is Jackson or Sharpton. 

 

[pantherclub]

And you don't know what her buyout is. 

Or her next job.  No way she would agree to buyout without having something lined up.  

 

[TheFanatic]

Wow, you actually dislike her more than I do, that's pretty impressive bc I really don't like the woman. 

She'll always have a role speaking at some very liberal university, maybe an opportunity to host a show on something like MSNBC, contributing for places like HuffPost, etc...

She'll prob venture out to do her own thing, fail since she is awful, and then fall back on one of the aforementioned. She has prob already cleared $10MM-$15MM in the last couple of years and she isn't some uneducated athlete who will blow it on hookers, bling, & cars. 

Be happy she is out of the spotlight and her drivel won't be forced down your throat while trying to catch a sports highlight.

I honestly don't hate her. I was just playing devil's advocate. We can't know that she is set for life. She may very well be, but we don't know that. But I do know this, she took a hard hit to her earning potential by arguing politics on social media. That's a fact. 

 

[Epic Problem]

I honestly don't hate her. I was just playing devil's advocate. We can't know that she is set for life. She may very well be, but we don't know that. But I do know this, she took a hard hit to her earning potential by arguing politics on social media. That's a fact. 

It is anything but fact. Its your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

[TheFanatic]

It is anything but fact. Its your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. 

There is no way she makes $2.5 mill a year as a political pundit. Even as a pundit, columnist and public speaker, all in one, she is not making that much money.  It's a fact.

 

[pantherclub]

There is no way she makes $2.5 mill a year as a political pundit. Even as a pundit, columnist and public speaker, all in one, she is not making that much money.  It's a fact.

lol that's not a fact at all.   You are being weird about this dude.   

 

[Capella]

Yeah, she lost her contract. She was bought out. They have some cause to fire her, so ESPN and Hill split the contract at some point and she goes away with less than the entire contact, but gets paid more than if she were outright fired. I doubt they paid her contract in full. But then again, ESPN doesn't make the best decisions lately. 

She went to them requesting it. So she either got the full contract or she has a deal in place or both. 

You need to brush up on your remedial comp and stop letting your narrative dictate what you read. 

And lol at saying she is an example for not discussing politics. She is an example FOR discussing politics after this. 

 

[JuniorGong]

There is no way she makes $2.5 mill a year as a political pundit. Even as a pundit, columnist and public speaker, all in one, she is not making that much money.  It's a fact.

Rachel Maddow makes $7M/year

 

[Short Corner]

There is no way she makes $2.5 mill a year as a political pundit. Even as a pundit, columnist and public speaker, all in one, she is not making that much money.  It's a fact.

Obligatory

 

[Capella]

Rachel Maddow makes $7M/year

Olbermann was clearing 10 at one point. She’s gonna get paid by somebody. 

 

[JuniorGong]

Olbermann was clearing 10 at one point. She’s gonna get paid by somebody. 

Yep and Hannity is clearing around $36M a year...more money out there for political pundits than sports broadcasters

 

[fantasycurse42]

Yep and Hannity is clearing around $36M a year...more money out there for political pundits than sports broadcasters

Are you ####### serious? I'm in the wrong line of work!

 

[shadyridr]

The View is probably begging her to join. She'll definitely be able to make up that contract. I think you are fooling yourself if you think she is upset by her contract buyout.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

To me this was part of the disaster of ESPN, not her specifically, but as a whole that political persona bull####. Stick with sports, report sports, keep it to sports. Sometimes I understand there might be a few things that cross over and are hard to avoid, but don't report a political opinion and minimize your reporting of it. 

They bet people would want politics and sports mixed, they bet wildly incorrect, and they made this bet as cord cutting was picking up a lot of steam and the tide was already moving against them. I grew up on ESPN and they lost me over the last few years. 

This is a common cliche, but sports and politics are crossing over more than ever these days. ESPN would be foolish to ignore it.  Hill has over a million followers on Twitter. She's directly engaged with the President. I don't watch ESPN much at all myself, but I don't necessarily agree they "bet wildly incorrect" by sticking with Hill over the past few years.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Jemele Hill out at ESPN at end of next week

Bye 

 

[JuniorGong]

Are you ####### serious? I'm in the wrong line of work!

Megyn Kelly $23M/yr

George Stephanopoulos $15M/yr

Anderson Cooper $12M/yr

The best comparison is probably Robin Roberts since like Hill she was at ESPN for several years, she makes $18M/yr. 

Now, I strongly dislike Hill but I strongly dislike a lot of the people I've mentioned but they are all getting paid. I believe the highest piad sportscaster/analyst/commentator out there is Jim Rome and he checks in around $14M/yr. However, huge drop off to #2 which is Bob Costas at $7M/yr. A lot more money with political commentary or just general type variety talk shows.

 

[fantasycurse42]

This is a common cliche, but sports and politics are crossing over more than ever these days. ESPN would be foolish to ignore it.  Hill has over a million followers on Twitter. She's directly engaged with the President. I don't watch ESPN much at all myself, but I don't necessarily agree they "bet wildly incorrect" by sticking with Hill over the past few years.

How were those SC6 ratings? What about that other show she was on after, I don't even know the name, never saw it once.

I do recall reading an article that SC ratings jumped 20% after canning Hill/Smith. 

They bet wildly incorrect, just my opinion, but I'm sticking with it. 

 

[TheFanatic]

Well, now that I see these crazy contracts, I stand corrected. And if she requested the buy out then she has something lined up and something in politics because I'm assuming there is a non compete for other sports shows. 

 

[GoBirds]

Bye 

Don't let the door hit ya.....

 

[Eephus]

It's nice that so many FBGs care about the livelihood of Jemele Hill

 

[Scott Tenorman]

Yep and Hannity is clearing around $36M a year...more money out there for political pundits than sports broadcasters

Are you ####### serious? I'm in the wrong line of work!

Have not been in the political forum?  Those are the morons feeding this ####.

 

[AAABatteries]

I was several pages behind on this thread so I'm Hippling but all the posts about viewership and what they are doing wrong etc. just seem misguided to me.  Viewership is virtually down everywhere.  Lots of factors but when you have a station that is a superset of specialized stations (NFL, NBA, MLB) there's always going to be cannibalization.  When you throw in the new generation and how they consume information/media it was bound to have viewers go way down.  I think the question for ESPN is - what do they think their future is going to be.  Can they continue to cover all/most sports or will they need to continue to focus more on just certain sports?  The genie is out of the bottler - they will never be what they once were so they need to embrace is sooner rather than later - and maybe they have, I'm like a lot of you and don't really watch much any more.  I can say that for me, the simple thing that continues to get me to tune in is the actual games.  I think if I was in charge, that is what I would focus on - delivering the actual games and let others focus more on specialized commentary on the different sports.

 

[Eephus]

ESPN could fill their cable channel airtime with more live sports but their current strategy is to upcharge viewers for their ESPN+ package.  They presumably have data that indicates studio shows bring in better broadcast ratings than niche sports and the latter produce more revenue with a premium streaming-only model.

ESPN+ has extensive quantity but the quality depends on whether you're a fan of what they're streaming. 

 

[dutch]

need more caber tossing

 

[belljr]

This is a common cliche, but sports and politics are crossing over more than ever these days. ESPN would be foolish to ignore it.  Hill has over a million followers on Twitter. She's directly engaged with the President. I don't watch ESPN much at all myself, but I don't necessarily agree they "bet wildly incorrect" by sticking with Hill over the past few years.

And this is why I watch pro sports less and less.  I don't want politics in my sports

 

[Capella]

This is a common cliche, but sports and politics are crossing over more than ever these days. ESPN would be foolish to ignore it.  Hill has over a million followers on Twitter. She's directly engaged with the President. I don't watch ESPN much at all myself, but I don't necessarily agree they "bet wildly incorrect" by sticking with Hill over the past few years.

she said the other day she never discussed politics on her show.  Just twitter. Does that really upset people that much? 

 

[RC94]

Cable companies need to go a la carte because making me pay for ESPN if I want to get the basic cable package that includes channels like HGTV, TBS, etc. is one of the main reasons I cut the cord.  The price from just internet charges (not including any promotions they give to keep me with some cable channels), to also include the basic cable channels almost doubles the overall price.  Making me include ESPN in that package is one of the main reasons it's so expensive and why I won't do it.

 

[Eephus]

Cable companies need to go a la carte because making me pay for ESPN if I want to get the basic cable package that includes channels like HGTV, TBS, etc. is one of the main reasons I cut the cord.  The price from just internet charges (not including any promotions they give to keep me with some cable channels), to also include the basic cable channels almost doubles the overall price.  Making me include ESPN in that package is one of the main reasons it's so expensive and why I won't do it.

Cable companies don't need to do anything since in many cases, they're still a monopoly Internet provider even if their customers cut the cord.  Bundling is still an advantageous model for both the cable companies and the content providers.   The latter will be the biggest losers if bundling dies.

 

[Tom Servo]

she said the other day she never discussed politics on her show.  Just twitter. Does that really upset people that much? 

And I don't follow her on the twitters. 

She can do her thing and I'll do mine, never the two to meet. 

 

[TLEF316]

yeah, cable company bundling isn't going anywhere. Even if cord cutting gets easy enough for any semi-sophisticated user to make the move (To me, that means getting everything in one place and not having to jump between 4 different aps and god knows what else for all your content) there will still be WAY more than enough completely unsophisticated users that wont want to bother.  So the monopolistic cables companies will still have plenty of customers to gouge for many years to come. I mean, what percentage of people over say....45 are EVER going to buy into something like youtube TV when they've just been turning on their cable box and watching whatever they want for the last 30 years. 

Most people just want things to be simple. And if that means they get forced to buy a bunch of stupid channels they'll never watch so that they can watch ESPN, they'll do it. 

 

[Short Corner]

ESPN could fill their cable channel airtime with more live sports but their current strategy is to upcharge viewers for their ESPN+ package.  They presumably have data that indicates studio shows bring in better broadcast ratings than niche sports and the latter produce more revenue with a premium streaming-only model.

ESPN+ has extensive quantity but the quality depends on whether you're a fan of what they're streaming. 

Yeah, USAB thought it was wise to sell them the rights and allow them to put it on plus, milking the niche market that was basically the friends and family of the kids making the team.

 

[Eephus]

Yeah, USAB thought it was wise to sell them the rights and allow them to put it on plus, milking the niche market that was basically the friends and family of the kids making the team.

ESPN has done a good job of scarfing up US rights for global soccer leagues.  I'm sure there are small college conferences that'll be happy to gain exposure.

$4.99/mo. is very reasonable but I already watch too much sports without spending time on Dutch soccer or Div. II hoops.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

ESPN+ is a joke.  

 

[TheFanatic]

So much for ESPN staying out of politics. Evidently Max Kellerman went off on Tiger for saying people should respect the office of the president no matter who's in it. 

And did I hear that some broad on the Greeny show won't watch football anymore? Isn't that like being a television chef deciding not to cook meat anymore? Sure, there are lots of vegetarians, but the vast majority of the population are carnivores. It might help the waist line, but it ain't helping ratings. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

So much for ESPN staying out of politics. Evidently Max Kellerman went off on Tiger for saying people should respect the office of the president no matter who's in it. 

And did I hear that some broad on the Greeny show won't watch football anymore? Isn't that like being a television chef deciding not to cook meat anymore? Sure, there are lots of vegetarians, but the vast majority of the population are carnivores. It might help the waist line, but it ain't helping ratings. 

Greenburg's show might be the biggest failure in sports television history.  

 

[Tom Servo]

And did I hear that some broad on the Greeny show won't watch football anymore? Isn't that like being a television chef deciding not to cook meat anymore? Sure, there are lots of vegetarians, but the vast majority of the population are carnivores. It might help the waist line, but it ain't helping ratings. 

If you think Michelle Beadle or any other talking head on ESPN, FS1, etc. is watching even a majority of the sports they talk about, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[TheFanatic]

If you think Michelle Beadle or any other talking head on ESPN, FS1, etc. is watching even a majority of the sports they talk about, I have a bridge to sell you.

I really only listen to Wingo and Golic and local stuff. And I feel like all of them do watch pretty much every major sport they talk about. Golic knows his NBA. I doubt he knows much about hockey, but they don't talk hockey. I'm not sure how much world cup soccer they watch, but football, baseball, basketball, yeah. 

Considering the popularity of football in the US, how could anyone on any of those stations not watch football? I guess if they focus solely on one sport? 

 

[TheFanatic]

Greenburg's show might be the biggest failure in sports television history.  

I was a big fan of Mike and Mike and hated to see it go, but I have yet to watch a single minute of Greenburg's new show. I just don't care. 

 

[Eephus]

ESPN+ is a joke.  

Why?

Many people in this thread have said ESPN should show more live sports instead of studio talking heads shows.  There's been a lot of nostalgia about the early days of the network when they showed niche sports.  ESPN+ is a return to that and offers more programming in a week than Netflix or HBO does in a month.