andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,072
|
Post by andrew8798 on Jun 2, 2016 16:30:25 GMT -5
-AA
|
|
pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Jun 3, 2016 14:49:38 GMT -5
The casual sports fans rate stays the same, I'm betting. Finally, finally finally, we are in an age where people who actually watch sports and keep up with actual non-TMZ sports stuff have places to go to experience ... sports and sports-related news. It's a miracle.
ESPN and its garbage finally has lost a portion (small though it may be) of its agenda-laden stranglehold on broadcasting. They'll be fine, I'm sure. But at least viewers in limited markets do not have to rely solely on the crap that is ESPN.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 14:58:05 GMT -5
For ESPN, it seems to be a multi-pronged blow due to cord cutting and people getting their sports updates elsewhere on the Internet.
As for FS1 & NBCSN, I look at the two problems for each network:
1. For FS1, they are on a premium cable outlet, while NBCSN is on basic cable. While FS1 has plenty of content (college football, NASCAR, college basketball, UFC, etc.), they are also highly disorienting and feature too many people on their programs. 2. NBCSN's problem is the exact opposite of FS1; lack of content. The other night, I saw the exact same car auction from 2 weeks ago, which must have been the 5th airing of that program. Outside of the NHL & IndyCar, they really lack programming for this network until we get into the Giro de Italia & Tour de France bike races later this summer.
I can't explain how FS2 is doing well.
Really, ESPN remains the main obstacle against cable providers offering an a la carte plan because a good chunk of your monthly bill is due to paying for what is now just two networks on the basic tier, and for Disney, it's not as large of a bartering chip as they once had (outside of the Disney Channel, they don't have much going; even with renaming ABC Family "Freeform", it's still the same abstract network that it was with Michael Eisner bought it from Neil Saban 15 years ago).
This is complex, but also fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by Father Dougal McGuire on Jun 3, 2016 18:24:58 GMT -5
For ESPN, it seems to be a multi-pronged blow due to cord cutting and people getting their sports updates elsewhere on the Internet. As for FS1 & NBCSN, I look at the two problems for each network: 1. For FS1, they are on a premium cable outlet, while NBCSN is on basic cable. While FS1 has plenty of content (college football, NASCAR, college basketball, UFC, etc.), they are also highly disorienting and feature too many people on their programs. 2. NBCSN's problem is the exact opposite of FS1; lack of content. The other night, I saw the exact same car auction from 2 weeks ago, which must have been the 5th airing of that program. Outside of the NHL & IndyCar, they really lack programming for this network until we get into the Giro de Italia & Tour de France bike races later this summer. I can't explain how FS2 is doing well. Really, ESPN remains the main obstacle against cable providers offering an a la carte plan because a good chunk of your monthly bill is due to paying for what is now just two networks on the basic tier, and for Disney, it's not as large of a bartering chip as they once had (outside of the Disney Channel, they don't have much going; even with renaming ABC Family "Freeform", it's still the same abstract network that it was with Michael Eisner bought it from Neil Saban 15 years ago). This is complex, but also fascinating. Well NBCSN does have most of the F1 races and most of the last half of the NASCAR season, including the chase. They also have EPL. Unfortuntaly EPL and F1 airs on off hours, mostly on early Sunday mornings outside of the Asian/Australian races which air late Saturday nights after midnight. I do wonder how much of a boost NBCSN will get during the Olympics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2016 8:46:11 GMT -5
I watch more FS1 & 2 for baseball and the occasional Bundesliga match. And they don't focus on the same 3 teams every week in either. You get a variety.
|
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507
|
Post by Shai on Jun 4, 2016 9:43:15 GMT -5
Eh, I pay for MLB At Bat for all my baseball needs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2016 10:20:11 GMT -5
I watch more FS1 & 2 for baseball and the occasional Bundesliga match. And they don't focus on the same 3 teams every week in either. You get a variety. Variety? That sounds like something that me the consumer can't handle.
|
|
Fundertaker
El Dandy
Hideo Kojima should direct every ending ever!
Posts: 8,860
|
Post by Fundertaker on Jun 4, 2016 16:06:24 GMT -5
The Giro d'Italia is in May.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Jun 14, 2016 0:16:01 GMT -5
The casual sports fans rate stays the same, I'm betting. Finally, finally finally, we are in an age where people who actually watch sports and keep up with actual non-TMZ sports stuff have places to go to experience ... sports and sports-related news. It's a miracle. ESPN and its garbage finally has lost a portion (small though it may be) of its agenda-laden stranglehold on broadcasting. They'll be fine, I'm sure. But at least viewers in limited markets do not have to rely solely on the crap that is ESPN. I agree, ESPN is going no where, but we aren't forced to watch the soap opera garbage on ESPN. As others have said, we have several national alternatives. MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA all have their own networks for league exclusive coverage. There are more local/regional sports networks than ever. This has also led to more actual game coverage. So instead of listening to people talk about sports, you can watch them instead. I think most of all the internet/social media plays a big part. ESPN's biggest bread and butter was always breaking sports news stories(such as trades, suspensions and injuries), but now with the internet and many reliable reporters being on social media, people don't have to sit through a half hour of sensationalized "sports newz" to get to what they wanted to the news they wanted to get. Unfortunately for ESPN they still haven't completely adjusted to this. I will admit at times I find late-night Sportscenter pretty watchable, as I enjoy the game highlights. But mid-morning to late afternoon is insufferable being filled with agenda-laden stories and whatever sensationalized story they are pushing at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Jun 14, 2016 1:46:21 GMT -5
The problem is that those single sports networks are an even smaller niche and pretty much a dead zone half the year, where as ESPN has the advantage of covering NBA, NHL, college basketball, golf, tennis, etc when the NFL is in it's off-season. And so on and so forth. I'm bigger into hockey than any sport right now, and their channel is unwatchable 95% of the off-season. So ESPN has value as a catch-all for lazy fans, or for casual fans who just want to skim the top and not get into the depth of certain sports. The idea has plenty of value, especially in this short attention-span environment. But the execution is total trash. They've been run like a total joke ever since Disney took them over. Sadly, Fox Sports is kind of going after that same demo (ya know, morons) and NBC Sports is half-assing it. I want ESPN to go back to what they were before or get lapped by a better mousetrap in sports coverage. But it seems like they'll just keep slowly getting chipped at, like cable in general.
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Jun 14, 2016 4:05:11 GMT -5
The problem is that ESPN spends to much time on the same topic and ignores a lot of other sports news or headlines. This isn't just a TV problem. They focus on the same teams even if those teams are sucking and other teams are doing much better and deserve credit. You ever listen to ESPN radio? For example the newer show in the early morning First and Last, they spend about a good hour on the NBA finals and it's a two hour radio show, and 90% of what they talk about is Curry and James. Yes I get it, they are in the final and they are great but this wasn't even a game night who WHY are we spending so much time on this topic. The fact these two barely talked about anything else including the STANLY CUP that was crowned. The first show they had after Ali passed away, even when talking about him, they still managed to name drop Labron James in it. Get off of it already, I get it you two appear to have some kind of fantasy for James but come on.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Jun 14, 2016 14:41:36 GMT -5
What they're trying to do is make you a different type of consumer. You want sports, that's the fun part. Talking to your friends about it, watching games, going to games, all awesome. But ESPN doesn't like their cut of that. So you like Steph Curry? Great, we're gonna talk about him and his game last night. Gotcha! Instead, we're gonna talk about his basketball legacy, and his personal life and his daughter and how he carries himself, etc etc. They want to sell this inane banter that gets further and further away from the sport itself every day. It's a bait and switch. They LOVE......THEY LOVE people that talk about how stupid Skip Bayless is or how wrong Stephen A. Smith is. Because you're not talking about a sport anymore, you're talking about the machine. That has no real association with sports. Neither does Manziel really at this point, he's just a bench player. But they can sell him. They want to sell your hatred of an athlete or they want to cover an athlete so much that you begin to hate him.
I think it started with Vick. I know overexposed athletes predate Vick and ESPN, but he was the first guy that ESPN went waaaaaayyyyyy overboard with and you started to notice a lot of backlash, and you could tell they noticed they had something. Then LeBron came along in HS, and they haven't really looked back.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Jun 14, 2016 14:48:47 GMT -5
I'll explain why FS2 numbers are going up.... Ain't nothin' better than some Aussie Rules Football on a late Friday/Saturday night.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jun 17, 2016 10:15:55 GMT -5
ESPN has a lot of problems. They way overspent on sports programming in an attempt to become a monopoly, creating entities that the SEC and Longhorm network which, while a boon for the schools, don't bring in the money they hoped because they have too narrow an audience for what they pay for them.
Then, being beholden to ratings, they latch on to whatever subject du-jour they can (Brett Favre's retirement, Tim Tebow, Jeremy Lin, Patriots, Yankees, etc.), which inevitably isolates everyone else. Now people who are fans of things other than what ESPN decides to spend 75% of their time covering have several other outlets to get the sports news they want and ESPN's model is gradually becoming obsolete as people find they don't need cable to get the sports they want.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Jun 17, 2016 11:30:48 GMT -5
What they're trying to do is make you a different type of consumer. You want sports, that's the fun part. Talking to your friends about it, watching games, going to games, all awesome. But ESPN doesn't like their cut of that. So you like Steph Curry? Great, we're gonna talk about him and his game last night. Gotcha! Instead, we're gonna talk about his basketball legacy, and his personal life and his daughter and how he carries himself, etc etc. They want to sell this inane banter that gets further and further away from the sport itself every day. It's a bait and switch. They LOVE......THEY LOVE people that talk about how stupid Skip Bayless is or how wrong Stephen A. Smith is. Because you're not talking about a sport anymore, you're talking about the machine. That has no real association with sports. Neither does Manziel really at this point, he's just a bench player. But they can sell him. They want to sell your hatred of an athlete or they want to cover an athlete so much that you begin to hate him. I think it started with Vick. I know overexposed athletes predate Vick and ESPN, but he was the first guy that ESPN went waaaaaayyyyyy overboard with and you started to notice a lot of backlash, and you could tell they noticed they had something. Then LeBron came along in HS, and they haven't really looked back. Great points, you basically summed ESPN up to a tee. Although you did miss one point, the way they cover sports. If you listen to ESPN radio, this point is very apparent. The NBA and the NFL are the only sports that matter, although they will acknowledge soccer's rise in popularity. There is a reason for all of this. One, the NFL is clearly the most popular sport's league in the U.S. and there is no way to deny that. Even if ESPN had no coverage of NFL games, they couldn't. Then there is the NBA, which if you look at numbers outside of the finals, there is certainly ways to deny it is the number 2 league. But, ESPN/ABC covers the finals, it is really the only sport ESPN/ABC has the rights for the finals of any league(outside of the World Cup). Which leads to my point on soccer. While NBC has the EPL and Fox has the FA Cup, Copa America and the Champions League, ESPN still can't deny soccer because it has the biggest games in the sport with the World Cup. The funny part of it all is ESPN insists MLB and the NHL are dying. While ESPN carries baseball, it doesn't have the World Series and they haven't carried the NHL for years. What is even more ridiculous about this theory is the NHL's ratings and attendence are rivaling what they did in the 1960's(the highest rated period for hockey in the U.S.). Especially for the Stanley Cup Finals, but ESPN/ABC don't carry them, so they don't matter. Then there is baseball. Baseball has some of it's best attendance in years and some regional markets are getting their best ratings ever. The thing is due to ESPN and their love for a small number of teams(Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers, basically the largest markets), baseball fans have gone elsewhere. Now fans go to regional markets to view baseball, and if it was a failure, how are MLB teams getting ridiculous T.V. deals(the Cardinals $1 billion t.v. deal is a great example, and they are a small market team) for just regional markets? The good part is baseball is going nowhere, the bad part is baseball fans have become incredibly introverted. Basically, they only follow their own team and division. Part of it has to do with having nearly the entire 162 game season of their own team available and not just watching national coverage, which can become exhausting. The other part is relying on local/regional coverage to follow the sport.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Jun 17, 2016 16:55:12 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of that. For instance, I've loved the last 10 years of tennis. Some incredible, all-time players and Slams. But ESPN didn't care at all, because tennis is a lower end sport with no big time American male player. Which points to them making the news, and not covering it.
There is a trend among baseball and basketball fans. The NBA has a tremendous young fan base that they're gonna bank on. But baseball fans are skewing older and older, and are going to start dying out soon. We'll see where they stand 10 years from now, but they definitely need to start attracting younger audiences.
|
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507
|
Post by Shai on Jun 20, 2016 13:37:41 GMT -5
What they're trying to do is make you a different type of consumer. You want sports, that's the fun part. Talking to your friends about it, watching games, going to games, all awesome. But ESPN doesn't like their cut of that. So you like Steph Curry? Great, we're gonna talk about him and his game last night. Gotcha! Instead, we're gonna talk about his basketball legacy, and his personal life and his daughter and how he carries himself, etc etc. They want to sell this inane banter that gets further and further away from the sport itself every day. It's a bait and switch. They LOVE......THEY LOVE people that talk about how stupid Skip Bayless is or how wrong Stephen A. Smith is. Because you're not talking about a sport anymore, you're talking about the machine. That has no real association with sports. Neither does Manziel really at this point, he's just a bench player. But they can sell him. They want to sell your hatred of an athlete or they want to cover an athlete so much that you begin to hate him. I think it started with Vick. I know overexposed athletes predate Vick and ESPN, but he was the first guy that ESPN went waaaaaayyyyyy overboard with and you started to notice a lot of backlash, and you could tell they noticed they had something. Then LeBron came along in HS, and they haven't really looked back. Great points, you basically summed ESPN up to a tee. Although you did miss one point, the way they cover sports. If you listen to ESPN radio, this point is very apparent. The NBA and the NFL are the only sports that matter, although they will acknowledge soccer's rise in popularity. There is a reason for all of this. One, the NFL is clearly the most popular sport's league in the U.S. and there is no way to deny that. Even if ESPN had no coverage of NFL games, they couldn't. Then there is the NBA, which if you look at numbers outside of the finals, there is certainly ways to deny it is the number 2 league. But, ESPN/ABC covers the finals, it is really the only sport ESPN/ABC has the rights for the finals of any league(outside of the World Cup). Which leads to my point on soccer. While NBC has the EPL and Fox has the FA Cup, Copa America and the Champions League, ESPN still can't deny soccer because it has the biggest games in the sport with the World Cup. The funny part of it all is ESPN insists MLB and the NHL are dying. While ESPN carries baseball, it doesn't have the World Series and they haven't carried the NHL for years. What is even more ridiculous about this theory is the NHL's ratings and attendence are rivaling what they did in the 1960's(the highest rated period for hockey in the U.S.). Especially for the Stanley Cup Finals, but ESPN/ABC don't carry them, so they don't matter. Then there is baseball. Baseball has some of it's best attendance in years and some regional markets are getting their best ratings ever. The thing is due to ESPN and their love for a small number of teams(Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers, basically the largest markets), baseball fans have gone elsewhere. Now fans go to regional markets to view baseball, and if it was a failure, how are MLB teams getting ridiculous T.V. deals(the Cardinals $1 billion t.v. deal is a great example, and they are a small market team) for just regional markets? The good part is baseball is going nowhere, the bad part is baseball fans have become incredibly introverted. Basically, they only follow their own team and division. Part of it has to do with having nearly the entire 162 game season of their own team available and not just watching national coverage, which can become exhausting. The other part is relying on local/regional coverage to follow the sport. . You are dead on about all of what you said. I live in a suburb of Kansas City and most of us could care less about espn. Sports wise three things matter: College Basketball, The NFL and The MLB our team won the damn world series last year. Espn was like Oh by the the KC Royals won the WS. Me and my friends were like thanks guys, The Royals only went from being like one of the worst teams in the league, to going to the WS two years in a row.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,072
|
Post by andrew8798 on Jul 11, 2016 19:41:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Jul 13, 2016 15:37:18 GMT -5
I do wonder if the long term effect losing insufferable dickheads like Bayless and Cowherd will ultimately change viewership either positively or negatively.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Jul 14, 2016 5:51:03 GMT -5
but what will happen to The Ocho?!!?!?
|
|