ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Apr 27, 2016 7:44:25 GMT -5
Skip Bayless and Mike Terico join Collin Cowherd and others who have cut and bailed from the worldwide leader in the last yr. My question is, is this indicative of problems at ESPN or the expansion of foxsports?
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,269
|
Post by Push R Truth on Apr 27, 2016 7:50:58 GMT -5
Wasn't there a big story like a year ago that ESPN was looking to cut like 100+ million dollars?
|
|
domrep
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by domrep on Apr 27, 2016 10:01:18 GMT -5
Yeah this is all a result of the cord cutting people seem to be doing and ESPN is feeling the pain. It also doesn't help that they've pretty much outbid everyone to get everything, tennis rights, etc etc.
It's one of those situations where instead of trying to buy all the programming, they're better off letting other networks get in on the action.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,869
|
Post by BRV on Apr 27, 2016 10:21:31 GMT -5
THIS NEVER WOULD'VE HAPPENED IF THEY COVERED HOCKEY AND ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE RED SOX AND YANKEES
|
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Apr 27, 2016 10:40:08 GMT -5
Colin Cowherd and Skip Bayless are prostitutes who say something stupid and/or inflammatory to try and get attention. Its not so much that ESPN is losing them its the Fox Sports thinks over paying them will make them relevant. It will not and I'm glad they are now going to be in the sports broadcast ghetto known as FS1. Now if they could take Stephen A Smith with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 27, 2016 12:04:12 GMT -5
Let the morons walk; nobody cares about them anymore.
Buy up rights for live games and events, which are the only reasons people don't cord cut even more.
|
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Apr 27, 2016 15:05:06 GMT -5
This was talked about a lot around the time when Olbermann left. It is from cutting the cord, as mentioned. ESPN feels the squeeze because it operates on SUCH a larger scale than so many other channels. It's also a machine running mostly on brand name at this point. It's taken a nosedive in terms of content since Disney took over, and they haven't missed a beat. They won't miss names, because the machine keeps going. But you have to wonder when the MASSIVE spending will start to really squeeze them. A lot of these losses are minor drops in the bucket, but I also imagine they're also just the beginning of their financial problems. That $2B SEC deal looks worse and worse in a medium (cable TV) that is really getting less and less essential to households by the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Apr 27, 2016 15:07:35 GMT -5
Leaving ESPN for FS1 is like leaving WWE for TNA. They think you'll be the difference until someone stops you in an airport and asks you where you went.
|
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Apr 27, 2016 23:58:23 GMT -5
Leaving ESPN for FS1 is like leaving WWE for TNA. They think you'll be the difference until someone stops you in an airport and asks you where you went. No one is worthy of comparison to TNA. Even if they choose to pay Cowherd and Bayless. |
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Apr 28, 2016 6:44:58 GMT -5
Thank you for the replies. ESPN's bread and butter is the live event. Not many people DVR sporting events vs almost everyone DVR's tv shows. They were smart to jump into digital streaming but it's expensive. Buying every sport? Once upon a time I understood why. Not many of you here were around when ESPN could barley get into a post game presser at an NFL stadium. They had water polo, wrestling, billiards and college basketball. So when they started being able to afford real sports they jumped in but I agree that they now are in too deep
|
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Apr 28, 2016 10:54:41 GMT -5
Leaving ESPN for FS1 is like leaving WWE for TNA. They think you'll be the difference until someone stops you in an airport and asks you where you went. With Fox Sports, they at least are positioning themselves at one of the better NCAA football ones with PAC/B1G/Half of Big XII. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Apr 28, 2016 10:59:27 GMT -5
I think it's only natural with the shifting media landscape. ESPN's also been SUCH a dominant entity that these major shifts affect more than most.
|
|
|
|
Post by RadcapRadsley on May 2, 2016 12:33:49 GMT -5
THIS NEVER WOULD'VE HAPPENED IF THEY COVERED HOCKEY AND ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE RED SOX AND YANKEES They didn't even cover hockey when NHL games were on ESPN because it's not a sport with a national following. Same thing with baseball,almost no one follows the sport(Under 50) nationally, other then their own team and Yankees,Red Sox,Cubs and Cardinals get coverage because they have national followings. |
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on May 6, 2016 19:39:45 GMT -5
^I disagree. They along with Fox and NBC, gave Hockey a huge push in the early 90's. For a minute it was working. Dude I'm from south Texas where ice not a naturally occurring phenomena outside your freezer. From like 94 thru I'd say 97 lots of us would watch the fox primetime playoff games and even the NBC Saturday games. But it was fadish and passed. But ESPN did promote thehell out of NHL hockey back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on May 7, 2016 0:07:59 GMT -5
THIS NEVER WOULD'VE HAPPENED IF THEY COVERED HOCKEY AND ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE RED SOX AND YANKEES They didn't even cover hockey when NHL games were on ESPN because it's not a sport with a national following. Same thing with baseball,almost no one follows the sport(Under 50) nationally, other then their own team and Yankees,Red Sox,Cubs and Cardinals get coverage because they have national followings. The supply kinda creates a demand though. It's a chicken and egg situation with ESPN, and a lot of the sports media in general. |
|
|
|
Post by CubsFan71 on May 9, 2016 3:03:45 GMT -5
THIS NEVER WOULD'VE HAPPENED IF THEY COVERED HOCKEY AND ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE RED SOX AND YANKEES They didn't even cover hockey when NHL games were on ESPN because it's not a sport with a national following. Same thing with baseball,almost no one follows the sport(Under 50) nationally, other then their own team and Yankees,Red Sox,Cubs and Cardinals get coverage because they have national followings. The dude's right. The only baseball teams ESPN gives a shit about are the Yankees and the Red Sox. Occasionally you'll see a Cardinals game. But the Cubs barely get a mention. Even as good as they're playing the year, the biggest thing ESPN covered was the steroid allegations against Jake Arietta. I don't care enough about hockey to comment to on it so I won't. |
|
|
|
Post by Nickybojelais on May 16, 2016 11:29:02 GMT -5
Not surprising to see they are in financial difficulties considering that they pay the NFL $2bn per year (twice as much as other broadcasters) to show less games, a weaker schedule, one wildcard playoff game and no Superbowl coverage. I just don't see what they get from such a deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on May 16, 2016 12:15:21 GMT -5
Not surprising to see they are in financial difficulties considering that they pay the NFL $2bn per year (twice as much as other broadcasters) to show less games, a weaker schedule, one wildcard playoff game and no Superbowl coverage. I just don't see what they get from such a deal. Disney pays the NFL that much to NOT show 1 game per week on broadcast TV? That's insane. |
|
rocket
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,801
|
Post by rocket on May 16, 2016 16:50:21 GMT -5
I think the NFL deal also includes use of highlights, since they're very sensitive over those kinds of things.
But seriously, does the typical viewer watch live sporting events for the talent in the booth? Whoever said ESPN is like WWE is dead-on, at this point ESPN is it's own draw, just like WWE.
|
|
