The Rise and Fall of ESPN (1 Viewer)

[Eephus]

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? 

If you don't watch or listen, why do you care so much?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

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. 

Its good for rugby, but similar to soccer it doesn't carry the most popular league. Worth it for me.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

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. 

I don't like that they have pulled content from the existing channels and then charging more money for it.  

 

[Eephus]

I don't like that they have pulled content from the existing channels and then charging more money for it.  

What programming got moved to the premium tier aside from the old 30 for 30s?

It seems like ESPN+ has added a lot of new stuff that wasn't available previously.

 

[TheFanatic]

If you don't watch or listen, why do you care so much?

Who said I cared. I just saw an article that said that after the new pres told everyone to avoid politics, people are still inserting it into the sports and there was a blurb in there about someone who works on one of their flagship shows (albeit a bad one from what I hear), who took some sort of stand not to watch football. I thought that last part was hysterical. 

 

[Binky The Doormat]

What programming got moved to the premium tier aside from the old 30 for 30s?

It seems like ESPN+ has added a lot of new stuff that wasn't available previously.

The Fantasy Show ...yeah   - it was a nice diversion late afternoon from the rest of that time's programming.  Shoot me.  

 

[Epic Problem]

So you're saying every decision ESPN makes turns into a money maker? Oh, OK. I wonder why all the layoffs then...

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?

Sure, they probably paid her through the end of the year or maybe even a full 12 months, but after that, she doesn't rake in 2.5 million ever year. So maybe she gets $2.5 million over the next 12 months, but she blew $10 million over the four years after that. 

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. 

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?

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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? 

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. 

And, saving the best for last......

Who said I cared. 

 

[TheFanatic]

And, saving the best for last......

Yeah, banter back and forth over topics of the day means I really care about what happens at ESPN. I'm here to kill time. This thread is as good a place to do it as any. Still doesn't mean I care. I haven't tuned into ESPN in years other than to watch the Cardinals on sunday night baseball. I listened to Mike and Mike (now Wingo and Golic) from about 6:30 am -7:00 when my local affiliate goes to a local show. 

That being said, I find it fascinating that something that ruled my television for many years in my past is now an absolute shell of what it used to be and seemingly on the same path as Blockbuster Video. That is worthy of discussion. The demise. Doesn't mean I care about the product. But thanks for caring enough to go back through and dig up all my quotes. It's good to have a fan...

 

[Epic Problem]

That, my friends, is text book deflection. 

 

[grateful zed]

That, my friends, is text book deflection. 

its like he is swimming in egypt.

 

[Short Corner]

What programming got moved to the premium tier aside from the old 30 for 30s?

It seems like ESPN+ has added a lot of new stuff that wasn't available previously.

The USAB stuff is available thru FIBA but ESPN+ gets the Semis and finals.  That stuff was always already available on FIBA.

 

[Eephus]

That being said, I find it fascinating that something that ruled my television for many years in my past is now an absolute shell of what it used to be and seemingly on the same path as Blockbuster Video. That is worthy of discussion. The demise.

Blockbuster was superseded by better technology.  I don't see a lot of similarities between that and ESPN's current situation.

ESPN and sports media in general are squeezed between consumers and cable companies on one side and rights owners on the other.  Consumers want to pay less and some percentage are willing to cut the cord to do so.  Cable companies want to reduce carriage fees to increase their own margins.  Rights owners (the leagues in most cases) have a business model that's dependent on continued increases in broadcast rights contracts.

I think the economics will change a bit but I don't see massive industry disruption that killed Blockbuster and other 20th century technologies.  I suppose the rights holders could disintermediate the sports networks and sell programming packages directly to consumers.  But the leagues benefit from the promotion they get from sports media as well as the stability they gain from long term contracts for broadcast rights.

Sports television faces challenges but no more so than entertainment or news television.  The cable subscription model is 40 years old and is facing its midlife crisis but still has strong market penetration.  I stream a lot of stuff but it still has a ways to go before it matches the convenience of clicking a button on a TV remote.

 

[Steve Tasker]

What programming got moved to the premium tier aside from the old 30 for 30s?

It seems like ESPN+ has added a lot of new stuff that wasn't available previously.

It hasn't been formally announced yet, but the SBNation blogs I follow for MAC sports are indicating that a bunch of football and basketball games (as well as the other niche sports) will be available on ESPN+ only this season.  In the past few years I've been able to watch many of my team's random-### games on ESPN3, included in my cable package.  Now, the still-unconfirmed story is that I'll have to buy the ESPN+ package to get those games.

$5/month isn't the end of the world, but still a bit of a slap in the face considering one of the only reasons I have cable to begin with is ESPN, which includes the access to ####ty MAC games.  I don't really blame ESPN for trying to make more money, but they did restrict access to a product that they've provided for the previous few years.

Of the 7 football games with TV broadcasting announced, 2 are on ESPN+.  5 games are still unannounced.  I'll wait to see what else looks like it's going to be on ESPN+ before deciding what to do.

 

[Doug B]

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.

I'm a slow adapter ... and even we cut the cord completely a year ago. And it really isn't hard or sophisticated any more (unless you want every last little thing ever and will pay for all those apps/services).

 

[need2know]

I think its funny that Golic and greeny are still on at the same time on different espns doing a similar morning show.  I still do watch a bit of Golic and wingo.  never watch the greeny one

 

[Doug B]

I was a big fan of Mike and Mike and hated to see it go ...

I wonder if they'll ever thread that show back together in the future? I am assuming no ill will between Mike and Mike ... don't even really know why they split up, unless Greenberg just wanted to try something new (again)  

 

[Eephus]

I'm a slow adapter ... and even we cut the cord completely a year ago. And it really isn't hard or sophisticated any more (unless you want every last little thing ever and will pay for all those apps/services).

what do you do for live sports?

 

[Doug B]

That being said, I find it fascinating that something that ruled my television for many years in my past is now an absolute shell of what it used to be and seemingly on the same path as Blockbuster Video. That is worthy of discussion. 

Yep. Also kind of interested, long term, to see what ESPN looks like if it survives well into the future as an entity.

I guess 1987-1999 (or so) ESPN ain't never coming back, though.

 

[TheFanatic]

Blockbuster was superseded by better technology. 

So has ESPN. I used to wait to see my team on the Sportscenter highlight. Now I get all my sports from the internet. The internet has made TV based sports reporting almost obsolete. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Just making it easier and easier to drop cable. Big games can be seen at a decent sports bar. Most NFL games are on free tv.

 

[Doug B]

what do you do for live sports?

Barely watch live sports.

Essentially every NFL or NCAA broadcast I really want to watch (Saints and LSU games) is on broadcast television, which we pick up via antenna (though Fox and CBS stream on DirecT Now).

DirecTV Now is our main streaming service, and it's got ESPN. Any LSU games not on CBS will typically be on ESPN. Monday Night Football is also covered, but I don't really get a chance to sit down and watch non-Saints MNF that often. No NFL Network, but don't care -- whenever the Saints are on TNF, the game is simulcast on a local broadcast network.

Don't really sit down to NBA or MLB games any more, either. No hockey. No MLS. Almost no college basketball.

 

[TheFanatic]

Yep. Also kind of interested, long term, to see what ESPN looks like if it survives well into the future as an entity.

I guess 1987-1999 (or so) ESPN ain't never coming back, though.

I have to wonder. Will ESPN be around in a decade?

 

[Doug B]

I stream a lot of stuff but it still has a ways to go before it matches the convenience of clicking a button on a TV remote.

With DirecTV Now ... all your streaming content (assuming you use a few major providers and don't have 20 niche streaming services) is available on one remote. And that was as of summer 2017. The convenience factor is changing rapidly.

 

[Doug B]

Just making it easier and easier to drop cable. Big games can be seen at a decent sports bar. Most NFL games are on free tv.

Can't ever do the sports bar thing any more, but good points.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Can't ever do the sports bar thing any more, but good points.

There is always a friend's house, some guys like hosting similar to the guys who host ppv boxing and such.

 

[Eephus]

With DirecTV Now ... all your streaming content (assuming you use a few major providers and don't have 20 niche streaming services) is available on one remote. And that was as of summer 2017. The convenience factor is changing rapidly.

I could cut the cord tomorrow but don't want to provide 7/24 tech support for Mrs. Eephus.

 

[Eephus]

I have to wonder. Will ESPN be around in a decade?

I think they'll survive because sport viewer demographics are still attractive to advertisers and there's still value in aggregating a variety of sports programming under a well known global brand.  It's possible that the NFL Network, NBA-TV, etc. could break the current model but they'd be taking on a lot of risk if they did that.

I would be less surprised if the escalation of broadcast rights fees plateaus or crashes.  There aren't many bidders to start with and if a few of them decide to sit out, the next contracts will less lucrative for the leagues.  The NHL and NASCAR contracts expire early in the next decade and are a lot more vulnerable than the cash cow leagues like the NFL and NBA.

 

[Doug B]

I could cut the cord tomorrow but don't want to provide 7/24 tech support for Mrs. Eephus.

My wife and daughter are much more up on the cord-cutting stuff than I am  

 

[Capella]

I think they'll survive because sport viewer demographics are still attractive to advertisers and there's still value in aggregating a variety of sports programming under a well known global brand.  It's possible that the NFL Network, NBA-TV, etc. could break the current model but they'd be taking on a lot of risk if they did that.

I would be less surprised if the escalation of broadcast rights fees plateaus or crashes.  There aren't many bidders to start with and if a few of them decide to sit out, the next contracts will less lucrative for the leagues.  The NHL and NASCAR contracts expire early in the next decade and are a lot more vulnerable than the cash cow leagues like the NFL and NBA.

Projections have the Nhl striking relative gold in their next deal. NBC and ESPN will be competing. 

 

[ShamrockPride]

Projections have the Nhl striking relative gold in their next deal. NBC and ESPN will be competing. 

Lol, as history tells us, NHL will indeed strike gold if they can get ESPN to overpay for broadcast rights. Doesn't seem to be too difficult a task.

 

[rodg12]

I have to wonder. Will ESPN be around in a decade?

You serious?  Do you know who owns ESPN?

 

[rodg12]

ESPN has 7 more years on their NBA deal and 7 more years on their college football playoff deal.  Unless you think Disney is going bankrupt, ESPN is going to be around a lot longer than 10 years.

This doesn't even get into Disney pivoting into their own streaming service and how ESPN+ is a part of that.  All the cord cutters paying Netflix are going to have to switch to the Disney service if they want to watch any Disney movies.  Oh, and add in the entire 21st Century Fox catalog that Disney will get with its purchase from Fox.

I mean, what do people think ESPN+ is being made for?

 

[Eephus]

Disney's recent acquisition of Fox's entertainment business could also change the landscape.  It's a complicated deal and I may be getting it completely wrong but Fox Sports is excluded from the merger.  Fox Sports will join Fox News and some other assets in a "New Fox" entity.  Disney is selling off a number of regional sports networks to avoid antitrust issues.

Fox Sports has a top heavy portfolio with its NFL and MLB deals but not as much depth as ESPN or NBC.  It seems like they barely have enough programming to fill up FS1 unless you're a UFC fan and FS2 (which isn't available in the Bay Area) has a very sparse programming schedule.

You never want to be #3 in any market.  ESPN is still the clear #1 and NBCSN and FS1 are duking it out for #2.  Losing Fox corporate backing and tie ins with the RSNs isn't going to help FS1 going forward.

 

[Capella]

I honestly cannot believe somebody would ask if ESPN will be around in 10 years. Some of you live on the moon. 

 

[TheFanatic]

You serious?  Do you know who owns ESPN?

I know exactly who owns them. Have you seen how ESPN is trending? Every heard of a company spinning off an underperforming asset?

 

[TheFanatic]

I honestly cannot believe somebody would ask if ESPN will be around in 10 years. Some of you live on the moon. 

When did you get so bitter? I leave the board for 8 short years and come back and it's like someone kicks your dog every day. Seriously, maybe you should talk to someone. 

 

[ThaPenguin]

Who had ESPN The Phone?

 

[Eephus]

ESPN+ has 27 college football games this weekend.

I don't know if any of these would have been available to cable subscribers for free last season.  Hell, I didn't even know Mars Hill at East Tennessee State was a thing until two minutes ago.

 

[Epic Problem]

I honestly cannot believe somebody would ask if ESPN will be around in 10 years. Some of you live on the moon. 

When did you get so bitter? I leave the board for 8 short years and come back and it's like someone kicks your dog every day. Seriously, maybe you should talk to someone. 

There are only two things in this exchange that are bitter. Your response and the word itself.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

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.

Does ESPN + also offer the ability to watch their regular sports programming live? Because for those without cable $4,99 a month is pretty reasonable for NFL, NBA, NCAA etc. games.

 

[Moe.]

ESPN+ has 27 college football games this weekend.

I don't know if any of these would have been available to cable subscribers for free last season.  Hell, I didn't even know Mars Hill at East Tennessee State was a thing until two minutes ago.

Yes, they would have been. It's taken over most of their ESPN3 content. They've also merged ESPN+ with Insider, so those two aren't separate subscriptions anymore from what I can tell. Insider was something like $40 bucks/year, I guess that goes monthly now too and comes with the streaming content. 

 

[Moe.]

Does ESPN + also offer the ability to watch their regular sports programming live? Because for those without cable $4,99 a month is pretty reasonable for NFL, NBA, NCAA etc. games.

No. Stuff on their actual channels still requires a cable/streaming subscription to watch online. 

I would assume that what you are talking about is coming next year when Disney launches their own streaming service. Not sure if ESPN+ would still be a stand-alone product at that point in time or if everything ESPN will be bundled together.  

 

[Dr. Octopus]

No. Stuff on their actual channels still requires a cable/streaming subscription to watch online. 

I would assume that what you are talking about is coming next year when Disney launches their own streaming service. Not sure if ESPN+ would still be a stand-alone product at that point in time or if everything ESPN will be bundled together.  

Thanks. I signed up for the 30 day free trial to check it out. No harm I guess (unless I forget to cancel before the trial ends).

 

[Eephus]

No. Stuff on their actual channels still requires a cable/streaming subscription to watch online. 

I would assume that what you are talking about is coming next year when Disney launches their own streaming service. Not sure if ESPN+ would still be a stand-alone product at that point in time or if everything ESPN will be bundled together.  

I've seen nothing to indicate Disney's direct to consumer streaming service will be bundled with ESPN+ content.  They have the same parent of course and there are obvious infrastructure synergies but they'd be crazy not to try to squeeze two monthly payments out of customers.

 

[Moe.]

I've seen nothing to indicate Disney's direct to consumer streaming service will be bundled with ESPN+ content.  They have the same parent of course and there are obvious infrastructure synergies but they'd be crazy not to try to squeeze two monthly payments out of customers.

Do you think they'll offer an all-encompassing ESPN streaming package that bundles the ESPN+ content with all of the stuff that currently airs on their networks, or do they continue to push people to cable/streaming services in order to get the big stuff?

 

[rodg12]

Yes, they would have been. It's taken over most of their ESPN3 content. They've also merged ESPN+ with Insider, so those two aren't separate subscriptions anymore from what I can tell. Insider was something like $40 bucks/year, I guess that goes monthly now too and comes with the streaming content. 

The interesting piece is going to be if you can get Insider/ESPN+ with a Mag subscription after this year.  You can grab ESPN The Magazine subscriptions for like $10 for a year.

 

[SWC]

everyone still busy complaining about the thing they say is dead but have to keep talking about just wondering take that to the bank bromigos 

 

[rodg12]

I wonder how much (if any) of each MLB.tv subscription Disney gets.  They own 75% of BAMTech now, which is what MLB.tv goes through.  I'm not sure they ever released the absolute particulars of that sale.  BAMTech hosts a bunch of stuff besides just MLB.tv.

 

[Eephus]

Do you think they'll offer an all-encompassing ESPN streaming package that bundles the ESPN+ content with all of the stuff that currently airs on their networks, or do they continue to push people to cable/streaming services in order to get the big stuff?

I think they'll do whatever the market will bear.  ESPN hasn't released any subscriber numbers for ESPN+ to my knowledge and the programming continues to be a work in progress.  If enough hardcore or niche sports fans are willing to pay separately for this content, there's no incentive for the network to reunite it with their more mainstream cable programming.

There's a lot of talk about skinny bundles but I think the challenge for consumers is to find ones that aligns best with the channels they want to watch.  I think they're ideal for single person households but gets more complicated with more viewers in a family.  If a skinny bundle (or multiple bundles) approaches the cost of a full cable package, consumers will end up in the same boat they're in today.  The only differences will be the name on the top of the bill.

 

[Capella]

When did you get so bitter? I leave the board for 8 short years and come back and it's like someone kicks your dog every day. Seriously, maybe you should talk to someone. 

Wait you want me to go see somebody because you have uninformed and hilarious takes about ESPN? How would I even bring that up?