pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Jun 29, 2016 22:50:19 GMT -5
You should have heard him on his radio show when a caller called him out on it. "Now, now, now, I'm pretty good at picking them all the way up to the Finals." Blathering idiot wallowing in his own bath of BS.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Oct 4, 2016 14:57:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Oct 7, 2016 12:36:21 GMT -5
Holy cow, Skip really did leave to do the exact same show.
They even got a dollar-store Molly Qerim as moderator
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 13:22:34 GMT -5
The show on FS1 is identical to First Take, and they aren't even try to differentiate it.
Though, Sharpe is a lot better than SAS, and it's not even close.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 7, 2016 13:25:04 GMT -5
ESPN is in a weird position, I think. A 24 hour sports channel is a niche product, but that's slightly offset by sports having such broad appeal to the masses. This means that things like hot takes, talking heads yelling at each other, etc., offer entertainment in the guise of analysis, and it's worked for ESPN for a good while.
However, as the internet grows and as more and more people buy into things like advanced analysis, "Moneyball" style approaches to team building, etc., the niche audience that will consume a 24 hour sports network seems to be looking for more; more stats, more intelligent talk of roster construction, things like that. This puts a limit on ESPN's audience, but the old format can't really hold, either, so where do you go with things?
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Oct 7, 2016 15:46:40 GMT -5
ESPN is in a weird position, I think. A 24 hour sports channel is a niche product, but that's slightly offset by sports having such broad appeal to the masses. This means that things like hot takes, talking heads yelling at each other, etc., offer entertainment in the guise of analysis, and it's worked for ESPN for a good while. However, as the internet grows and as more and more people buy into things like advanced analysis, "Moneyball" style approaches to team building, etc., the niche audience that will consume a 24 hour sports network seems to be looking for more; more stats, more intelligent talk of roster construction, things like that. This puts a limit on ESPN's audience, but the old format can't really hold, either, so where do you go with things? As shitty as I think ESPN is, I think what they're doing is really their only play. Cord cutting is going wild. Guys like Skip, Dan Patrick, Jim Rome, and Bill Simmons have left to very modest numbers elsewhere. The new advanced stats are the wave of the future, but how much programming can you dedicate to that and how well is it going to draw? They haven't even started with one show yet. I will say that I LOVED Olbermann's sharp approach to the sports day, but to my knowledge his numbers at ESPN weren't what they wanted. So as much as I'd love to see more stats talk, more advanced stats talk, more intelligent presentation, more ACTUAL sports and athlete talk and less pushing of ESPN "personalities" etc. I just don't know if they have enough of a market for that to do better than they are now. They know that talking all day about Tim Tebow's choice to back into a parking spot or go in head first is going to get a broad audience. I know that when I get on their website, there's ALWAYS going to be a video with the screencap of SAS with an idiotic or exacerbated look on his face intended to incite me to disagree with him. It's safe, thoughtless, and apparently works well enough.
|
|
|
Post by AwamoriRock on Oct 7, 2016 19:06:07 GMT -5
Doesn't his new show (well all FS1 shows) have awful ratings?
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Oct 9, 2016 19:03:08 GMT -5
ESPN is in a weird position, I think. A 24 hour sports channel is a niche product, but that's slightly offset by sports having such broad appeal to the masses. This means that things like hot takes, talking heads yelling at each other, etc., offer entertainment in the guise of analysis, and it's worked for ESPN for a good while. However, as the internet grows and as more and more people buy into things like advanced analysis, "Moneyball" style approaches to team building, etc., the niche audience that will consume a 24 hour sports network seems to be looking for more; more stats, more intelligent talk of roster construction, things like that. This puts a limit on ESPN's audience, but the old format can't really hold, either, so where do you go with things? Not to mention that there's now an NFL Network, MLB Network, etc. etc. I'm only into football, and I have no reason to watch ESPN whatsoever (besides the obvious Monday Night game). If I want NFL, I go to the NFL.
|
|
domrep
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by domrep on Oct 11, 2016 10:14:21 GMT -5
ESPN is in a weird position, I think. A 24 hour sports channel is a niche product, but that's slightly offset by sports having such broad appeal to the masses. This means that things like hot takes, talking heads yelling at each other, etc., offer entertainment in the guise of analysis, and it's worked for ESPN for a good while. However, as the internet grows and as more and more people buy into things like advanced analysis, "Moneyball" style approaches to team building, etc., the niche audience that will consume a 24 hour sports network seems to be looking for more; more stats, more intelligent talk of roster construction, things like that. This puts a limit on ESPN's audience, but the old format can't really hold, either, so where do you go with things? Not to mention that there's now an NFL Network, MLB Network, etc. etc. I'm only into football, and I have no reason to watch ESPN whatsoever (besides the obvious Monday Night game). If I want NFL, I go to the NFL. Even the Monday Night games have been awful for the most part, ever since NBC got the Sunday night package. I try and watch ESPN as much as I can. Yesterday was a holiday so I watched most of Mike and Mike (replay) and some Sportscenter. One of the problems is there's too many Sportscenters. Sportscenter AM, Sportscenter in the mid-afternoon, Sportscenter at 6, Sportscenter at 11. Van Pelt's show which is basically Sportscenter. 5 years ago you had the Sportscenter replay from like the 1 AM show, then Sportscenter at 6 and 11. I do wish they focused more on the games rather than the shows. Outside of football, baseball and basketball...they don't have much to show that piques my interest.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Oct 16, 2016 9:52:58 GMT -5
Holy cow, Skip really did leave to do the exact same show. They even got a dollar-store Molly Qerim as moderator I watched 5 mins of it and I started laughing at that nonsense. His troll act is funny but over the top to the point where you change the channel.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Nov 11, 2016 18:57:29 GMT -5
ESPN is moving First Take to ESPN to try to save the show
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Nov 11, 2016 23:22:14 GMT -5
ESPN is moving First Take to ESPN to try to save the show Jesus, what desperate act could they do next to save the show? Not make it a steaming pile of shit?
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Nov 13, 2016 3:12:12 GMT -5
Without skip its kind of amazing people gave up on the show
|
|
domrep
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by domrep on Nov 14, 2016 10:42:12 GMT -5
Sucks for Cari Champion, apparently she was miserable on First Take, got promoted and got her own show on ESPN. Now she's being bumped to ESPN2 by the very show she hated to be on.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Nov 15, 2016 13:11:29 GMT -5
ESPN is in a weird position, I think. A 24 hour sports channel is a niche product, but that's slightly offset by sports having such broad appeal to the masses. This means that things like hot takes, talking heads yelling at each other, etc., offer entertainment in the guise of analysis, and it's worked for ESPN for a good while. However, as the internet grows and as more and more people buy into things like advanced analysis, "Moneyball" style approaches to team building, etc., the niche audience that will consume a 24 hour sports network seems to be looking for more; more stats, more intelligent talk of roster construction, things like that. This puts a limit on ESPN's audience, but the old format can't really hold, either, so where do you go with things? Agree, although the midnight Sportscenter with SVP has been a major success. It does have a more analytical look at the games, although SVP has his own opinions, much more reasonable than Bayless or Cowherd. The fact is daytime tv for the most part is filled with either garbage shows or replays. You can only analyze a game so many times before it gets old and also the ESPN/Sports radio networks tend to cover that area for the more responsible people that are working during the day.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Nov 16, 2016 6:28:29 GMT -5
ESPN is in a weird position, I think. A 24 hour sports channel is a niche product, but that's slightly offset by sports having such broad appeal to the masses. This means that things like hot takes, talking heads yelling at each other, etc., offer entertainment in the guise of analysis, and it's worked for ESPN for a good while. However, as the internet grows and as more and more people buy into things like advanced analysis, "Moneyball" style approaches to team building, etc., the niche audience that will consume a 24 hour sports network seems to be looking for more; more stats, more intelligent talk of roster construction, things like that. This puts a limit on ESPN's audience, but the old format can't really hold, either, so where do you go with things? Agree, although the midnight Sportscenter with SVP has been a major success. It does have a more analytical look at the games, although SVP has his own opinions, much more reasonable than Bayless or Cowherd. The fact is daytime tv for the most part is filled with either garbage shows or replays. You can only analyze a game so many times before it gets old and also the ESPN/Sports radio networks tend to cover that area for the more responsible people that are working during the day. You can always count on Outside the Lines to be the show on ESPN that does any actual reporting. Still love that during Hope Solo's redemption tour where she was appearing on ABC playing the victim and ESPN was also pushing the narrative, Outside the Lines took a flamethrower to all of that and basically said it's bullshit, and here's the other side of the story.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,070
|
Post by Mozenrath on Nov 16, 2016 6:37:49 GMT -5
I feel like the only way I'd give a shit about ESPN is if they were still doing Cheap Seats and AWA/UWF reruns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 8:34:09 GMT -5
ESPN is in a weird position, I think. A 24 hour sports channel is a niche product, but that's slightly offset by sports having such broad appeal to the masses. This means that things like hot takes, talking heads yelling at each other, etc., offer entertainment in the guise of analysis, and it's worked for ESPN for a good while. However, as the internet grows and as more and more people buy into things like advanced analysis, "Moneyball" style approaches to team building, etc., the niche audience that will consume a 24 hour sports network seems to be looking for more; more stats, more intelligent talk of roster construction, things like that. This puts a limit on ESPN's audience, but the old format can't really hold, either, so where do you go with things? As shitty as I think ESPN is, I think what they're doing is really their only play. Cord cutting is going wild. Guys like Skip, Dan Patrick, Jim Rome, and Bill Simmons have left to very modest numbers elsewhere. The new advanced stats are the wave of the future, but how much programming can you dedicate to that and how well is it going to draw? They haven't even started with one show yet. I will say that I LOVED Olbermann's sharp approach to the sports day, but to my knowledge his numbers at ESPN weren't what they wanted. So as much as I'd love to see more stats talk, more advanced stats talk, more intelligent presentation, more ACTUAL sports and athlete talk and less pushing of ESPN "personalities" etc. I just don't know if they have enough of a market for that to do better than they are now. They know that talking all day about Tim Tebow's choice to back into a parking spot or go in head first is going to get a broad audience. I know that when I get on their website, there's ALWAYS going to be a video with the screencap of SAS with an idiotic or exacerbated look on his face intended to incite me to disagree with him. It's safe, thoughtless, and apparently works well enough. Never underestimate the power of the least common denominator. As much as we want rational thought, networks know that the demand for angry guys screaming nonsense will get more viewers; be it the clickbait mentality, the confrontational nature, or the train wreck aspect. Though, you can only go so far. FS1 is seeing returns by becoming the Firebrand Network for Hotheads, but will that yieldlyield longterm returns?
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Nov 16, 2016 9:00:14 GMT -5
As shitty as I think ESPN is, I think what they're doing is really their only play. Cord cutting is going wild. Guys like Skip, Dan Patrick, Jim Rome, and Bill Simmons have left to very modest numbers elsewhere. The new advanced stats are the wave of the future, but how much programming can you dedicate to that and how well is it going to draw? They haven't even started with one show yet. I will say that I LOVED Olbermann's sharp approach to the sports day, but to my knowledge his numbers at ESPN weren't what they wanted. So as much as I'd love to see more stats talk, more advanced stats talk, more intelligent presentation, more ACTUAL sports and athlete talk and less pushing of ESPN "personalities" etc. I just don't know if they have enough of a market for that to do better than they are now. They know that talking all day about Tim Tebow's choice to back into a parking spot or go in head first is going to get a broad audience. I know that when I get on their website, there's ALWAYS going to be a video with the screencap of SAS with an idiotic or exacerbated look on his face intended to incite me to disagree with him. It's safe, thoughtless, and apparently works well enough. Never underestimate the power of the least common denominator. As much as we want rational thought, networks know that the demand for angry guys screaming nonsense will get more viewers; be it the clickbait mentality, the confrontational nature, or the train wreck aspect. Though, you can only go so far. FS1 is seeing returns by becoming the Firebrand Network for Hotheads, but will that yieldlyield longterm returns? ESPN works because of the machine. FS1 isn't THE MACHINE. FS1 is a start-up with a bunch of guys who weren't key cogs in the machine. Like, remember Sean Salisbury? Terrible QB, smug guy, always had something stupid to say. The football talent of Skip Bayless, but with the volume turned down just a little. Anyway, he left and nobody has heard a word from him since. SAS is the guy now. And there will be another disposable spineless jagoff after him, and another after that one. So for FS1 to think that any of these guys are key to success is....well, to sum it up they're getting exactly what they deserve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 9:03:41 GMT -5
Never underestimate the power of the least common denominator. As much as we want rational thought, networks know that the demand for angry guys screaming nonsense will get more viewers; be it the clickbait mentality, the confrontational nature, or the train wreck aspect. Though, you can only go so far. FS1 is seeing returns by becoming the Firebrand Network for Hotheads, but will that yieldlyield longterm returns? ESPN works because of the machine. FS1 isn't THE MACHINE. FS1 is a start-up with a bunch of guys who weren't key cogs in the machine. Like, remember Sean Salisbury? Terrible QB, smug guy, always had something stupid to say. The football talent of Skip Bayless, but with the volume turned down just a little. Anyway, he left and nobody has heard a word from him since. SAS is the guy now. And there will be another disposable spineless jagoff after him, and another after that one. So for FS1 to think that any of these guys are key to success is....well, to sum it up they're getting exactly what they deserve. It's sort of what WCW/TNA did with WWE dropouts; bring them in and push them to the moon because they were part of the big conglomerate. Yes, Cowherd & Bayless are helping get FS1 ratings, especially after they've been through, what, three different concept changes in the three years they've been around? But, that's in the short term; while the junk food mentality has helped FS1's contemporary Fox News in the political spectrum, sports is a different beast than politics, and eventually, the bottom will fall out.
|
|