So you think they should have more panels talking NASCAR and ratings will go up? 12 million people watched the Daytona 500 which is the biggest event by far. Game 7 of the finals had 31 million people, I'm sure the world series most years is a lot more than 12M's. Not going to cite Cubs this year since that was a unique phenomenon. And do people wanna hear people analyze NASCAR? I dunno, they might wanna watch it but doesn't really seem like the type of sport that people are debating guys legacies, who X driver better than Y, etc.
I'm not even really saying the network couldn't do better. But I think you really underestimate market forces/increased competition and technology as the simple reason they are struggling. Obviously that isn't quite as sexy as the fact they lionize a tranny, but it does have a lot more to do with it.
All these people getting laid off is mostly just a market correction because ESPN grew like gangbusters for 30 years.
nonsense.....the venues cater to much larger one day crowds but the overall ticket sales are not even close. MLB alone sells what -- 70million tickets annually.
And while the NBA is in fact cutting back on radio telecasts (some clubs using a straight audio simulcast of television feed), MLB is easily the most listened to sport on terrestrial radio
They have a failing business model, but their options to adapt are more limited than you think.
Having people talking nascar or golf probably isn't going to stop the bleeding.
You want them to talk more football you said, right? Well what do you want them to say? I think their current football content is mostly bad when I hear it.
What do you think would make it better? Unless you hink they just need more of what they already have? I don't think that would work. And I think if they didn't rely on "IS ROMO A BIG GAME QB?" then less people would watch. Your avg sports fan likes those soap opera storylines.
Do you want them to start breaking down what the A and B gaps are? Don't think that is gonna work.
If you think they can do better then sell me on exactly how. It's possible they could do better ratings but I feel like they're mostly fucked (to a point, obviously the end result of Ryan Clark making 200k less and Trent Dilfer not having a job really isn't a big deal)
Having people talking nascar or golf probably isn't going to stop the bleeding.
You want them to talk more football you said, right? Well what do you want them to say? I think their current football content is mostly bad when I hear it.
What do you think would make it better? Unless you hink they just need more of what they already have? I don't think that would work. And I think if they didn't rely on "IS ROMO A BIG GAME QB?" then less people would watch. Your avg sports fan likes those soap opera storylines.
Do you want them to start breaking down what the A and B gaps are? Don't think that is gonna work.
If you think they can do better then sell me on exactly how. It's possible they could do better ratings but I feel like they're mostly fucked (to a point, obviously the end result of Ryan Clark making 200k less and Trent Dilfer not having a job really isn't a big deal)
Not what I'm saying guy.
Start with this, you have two African Americans in the prime time slot with a show that doesn't cater to what should be your target audience. The reviews for Hill and Smith are bad.
How does this decision get made to put them there? ESPN's target audience doesn't like them or their show so why stick with it? ESPN can't adapt. They refuse to cater to their viewers.
Start with that change.
And put who in, cater to what, talk about what?
Remove those 2 and flourish because....
I think you will find the answer is no grand bargain. Business model is just antiquated. Like I said, maybe a few changes help at the margins but too much technology/competition. In the end, this whole debate probably doesn't even mean much. They will be fine long-term, they jus gotta take a haircut as people shed the cable. And Ryan Clark has to stop making 600k for saying nothing or Dilfer is out of a job, not really that big of a deal unless you got tons of DIS stock.
Remove those 2 and flourish because....
I think you will find the answer is no grand bargain. Business model is just antiquated. Like I said, maybe a few changes help at the margins but too much technology/competition. In the end, this whole debate probably doesn't even mean much. They will be fine long-term, they jus gotta take a haircut as people shed the cable. And Ryan Clark has to stop making 600k for saying nothing or Dilfer is out of a job, not really that big of a deal unless you got tons of DIS stock.
I actually think 30 for 30 is just running out of ideas. Most of the audience for that stuff is people who want docs on 70s and onward and they've done most of the good stories. They did one on the XFL, that tells you they're probably out of ideas.
Follow an agent around? I mean unless he acts like Jerry McGuire I think that would be pretty boring. I remember they actually did that when Manny Ramirez signed his deal with the Sox, it was kinda cool I guess. But type of thing you would only wanna see once.
Has nothing to do with politics .
I don't understand why some people have such a hard time realizing that.
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck could be the main sports center host and it would have been the same situation as today.
What people are not talking about right now and it's about to be huge news is what this is about to do to the NFL and NBA.
There is going to be some major salary cap retractions in those sports .
The NFL and NBA is gonna hurt folks.
You gonna see pay in both sports take a major hair cut.
MLB is not going to be affected near as much as the NFL and NBA.
Baseball does not depend on national tv rights near as much as the other 2 sports.
Baseball gets its money from regional television rights and the attendance gates are a much bigger part of the revenue pie in baseball then the other sports.
Thats the real story that's about to be told.
This is just the first domino .
There is no way the NFL and NBA will be able to demand the money money they've been getting
I don't understand why some people have such a hard time realizing that.
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck could be the main sports center host and it would have been the same situation as today.
What people are not talking about right now and it's about to be huge news is what this is about to do to the NFL and NBA.
There is going to be some major salary cap retractions in those sports .
The NFL and NBA is gonna hurt folks.
You gonna see pay in both sports take a major hair cut.
MLB is not going to be affected near as much as the NFL and NBA.
Baseball does not depend on national tv rights near as much as the other 2 sports.
Baseball gets its money from regional television rights and the attendance gates are a much bigger part of the revenue pie in baseball then the other sports.
Thats the real story that's about to be told.
This is just the first domino .
There is no way the NFL and NBA will be able to demand the money money they've been getting
But most of the NFL's deals are with major networks that don't involve cable TV. They don't rely on cable subscriber fees as much. They rely on Network TV to pay them a ton of $ and then people sitting through beer commercials. They seem fine (on that front)
NBA would stand to lose the most since their TV deal is a bigger piece of their pie than others, so there might be a correction there. Flip side to that point is by the time that day comes it is possible they make more $ with revenue from overseas better.
+They can probably go direct to consumer, cut out the cable stations, etc...There is a lot they can do.
NBA would stand to lose the most since their TV deal is a bigger piece of their pie than others, so there might be a correction there. Flip side to that point is by the time that day comes it is possible they make more $ with revenue from overseas better.
+They can probably go direct to consumer, cut out the cable stations, etc...There is a lot they can do.
I actually believe this fluff people are talking about helps more then hurts.
A lot of people on this forum looks at everything fro
their own perspective and do not realize that they are the minority .
If you read the people at this place and if ESPN took the advice of the people here they would have nothing more then the very most hard core of sports fans.
They would have a loyal following but it would be relatively small.
I am speaking only of the non live sporting event broadcasting .
I think part of the problem is there is just not very much demand for any of ESPNs non live sporting event programming.
No matter what direction they take when it comes to non live sporting event programming .
They could go the hard core route and be limited or they could to the fluff route and be limited .
There is just simply not a huge market for either one of those programs.
What they will probably focus on in the future is very cheap
non live sporting events programming . I'm talking NFL films reruns, bowling etc...
And spend the bulk of their money on live programming.
There just is not much demand for anything that is not live sports related ..
If I were them I would have a morning and evening sports center and then a bunch of cheap programming during the day.
Disney pays more money for MNF then FOX and CBS pays for the NFC and AFC packages
People in this thread keep talking about all the non live event programming.
The deal is the demand for that stuff never was huge and it's even less now.
Not enough people are hard core for X and O talk and not enough people care about what Tebow ate today.
Just simply not enough market for any of that.
And ESPN like many other businesses got fat and inflated these people's salary to levels they never deserved in the first place .
The deal is the demand for that stuff never was huge and it's even less now.
Not enough people are hard core for X and O talk and not enough people care about what Tebow ate today.
Just simply not enough market for any of that.
And ESPN like many other businesses got fat and inflated these people's salary to levels they never deserved in the first place .
But if they paid a little less (or rights just escalated at a slower rate) it hardly brings the NFL to its knees.
I agree with you though that people don't really understand how limited the range of options are. What are they gonna do? Give Zach Lowe a show where he talks NBA X's and O's or Bill Barnwell talking the NFL salary cap? Nobody gonna watch that shit. That's what podcasts are for. Talking Nascar or Golf more is what those specific channels are for. Non-Live programming just isn't going to bring home the bacon the way it has for them the last 25 years.
Enfuego's solution to just fire all the truly awful commentary people is fine, but the alternative is not as going to yield nearly the results he thinks. It'll just yield slightly better (at best) ratings as competition and technology continues to chip away at that model.
That's my whole point to him in this thread, the alternatives are not as viable as you think. If they fire Jemele Hill or whatever, you gonna watch sportscenter more? People can get highlights in 30 seconds on their phone!
Espn play 1.9 billion of the 3.2 billion of NFL television rights per season.
MNF cost more money then the CBS and FOX package cost combined .
The only thing ESPN is good for is live sporting events mixed in with a morning and evening sports center .
Mayne throw in a new 30 for 30 here and there.
But other then that there really is nothing they can broadcast that would be profitable .
Has nothing to do with politics or not being hard core enough.
Just a simple fact that no matter what direction they go in they will not have a big enough audience for the production cost of
any of that type of programming hard core or fluff.
Just do a morning and evening sports center and play worlds strongest man competition reruns and call it a day.
I don't think the rates are going to escalate at a slower rate. They are going to contract .
Its not going to be the end of the NFL but there will be a contraction .
