What annoys me most about ESPN is how many of their reports and stories revolve around their own employees.
ESPN: Heading into November ...
- Thread starter HurdyGurdyEer
- Start date
Part of the problem is that ESPN is no longer looked at as likable. It wasn't always like that. ESPN was fun, funny, and delivered good content. As a kid, at home from school or in the summer I'd re-watch Sportscenter 3x a day sometimes, because what else was on? Their hosts were likable, and for me, even as a kid, I just enjoyed being able to get all my highlights in one space.
It serves a purpose - live sports. But that purpose isn't all that important. I miss WVU games frequently because I don't get FS1 at home, but I can go to a sports bar, and in some cases, I just don't watch the games, and believe it or not - my life goes on.
If the purpose they serves was actually important, they wouldn't need to subsidize their product on the backs of people who have no interest in sports, or just a very casual interest, but that's exactly how they built their empire.
Oversaturation and making sports about something other than an escape from reality for a few hours.
Making the league unlikeable, unenjoyable.
ESPN has turned the NFL into a WWE drama....it's just not fun anymore.
They've done the opposite with NBA. They sell the best players, focus on basketball talk....and the NBA is at great spot.
Maybe NBA leadership is just doing a btter job....Monday Night Football is down 1/4 in ratings.
Well ..... the point of the article is that if they keep losing subscribers at the rate they are now in five years they will not be able to meet obligations they have already made. Can they afford to up their bids when it now looks like they are heading toward a crisis?
Something innovative will have to happen or it goes belly-up.
Part of that something could be the elimination of most of the "non-game" programming that a lot of people are tired of. And it could also mean a reduction in the number of games broadcast.
OK, but those responses don't answer my original question. Thanks, anyway.
You asked how ESPN is partially responsible for declining ratings, I responded oversaturation and making it too much about something other than football. Agree or disagree but I very clearly answered your question.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't at all answer my question about how a network that only broadcasts one game per week could be responsible for declining ratings on the other 15 games per week they don't broadcast.
No FS1 for you either eh Darth? I pay 99 bucks a year for what is supposed to be the full college meal deal...football and basketball, yet...I don't get anything from FS1 as there is no agreement here to broadcast that network (which was discovered after several angry phone calls) and unfortunately they do an awful lot of B12. I was happy to see WVU on the mothership last week and ironically on ESPN networks over the last month or so...is FS1 typically an add on outside of a regular sports pack? I honestly don't know....you are Western NY area correct?
E-spin has gone down hill for the last several years. They have gone from scores and highlights to social commentary. They have taken to "all Duke all the time," a monopoly over all football bowl games, and using a softball star as a MLB analysis.
You do know that if no one pays for cable that then cable won't be writing out $30 million checks annually to WVU? So don't be too gleeful. There's no free lunch, fellows. WVU's money has to have a starting point, just like mountain streams.
Maybe the market is demonstrating that sports have been overvalued?
Maybe ESPN led the way in flooding the market with so much sports that now no one can afford to pay for it all?
Maybe, in the future, the market will dictate that a big chunk of the money spent on broadcasting certain sporting events will have to come directly from consumers who choose to spend that money on the sports of their choosing?
I would pay $10 to watch a Mountaineer football game via online streaming. How about you?
To clarify, by oversaturation I mean that they literally cover the NFL every day of the year in one way shape or form, and triple down on the coverage during the football season to the point that me, someone living in the NYC area who roots for the Buffalo Bills, for some reason knows what is going on with the San Diego Chargers left tackle. Its overkill, me as an avid sports fan (as evidenced that I post on a sports forum) have been overexposed to football, by the time the 1:00 games end Im over it.
Not directly but you make some good points. IMO the biggest downfall is all of the crappy QB play. There have been just bad games on primetime slots. Haven't seen ratings for this week, but imagine that they did very well with Falcons-Packers and Eagles-Cowboys, since they were very good games.
From what I've read, people were tuning in, then tuning out of games. Lastly, I think the NFL cashed in on the fantasy football bubble that has now reached it's peak. They banked that people would watch uninteresting games 3-4 times per week since they had fantasy players in the game not thinking that the non football fans are content with checking the updates on their phones as opposed to tuning in. I know a ton of people who our fantasy football freaks who don't even watch a game or even like football.
NBA is doing it right, whatever they are doing. It's growing and has become a watchable product again.
Good points here. I cant watch the uninteresting Thursday and usually Monday games. The Sunday night game is always a good matchup but me and the fiance are going to opt for our Sunday shows over football given I watched football all afternoon. The phone updates are what will kill the fantasy football driven uptick on Titans-Jags games. The game moves too slow to watch a game where you have only fantasy football interest (i.e. too much time in between plays, and when your guy isnt on offense who cares what happens). However basketball embraced fantasy sports early, and while it is nowhere near the popularity of NFL fantasy, it is growing because the games are fluid and there is constant action. I do an occassional NBA draftkings or fanduel and it really is entertaining to watch.
And .... concerning professional sports ..... more and more people are simply not interested in watching millionaires, who are only millionaires because they can play a game, actually play a game.
I dont care how much they make, and most of them, especially in the NFL, are not millionaires. In most cases the player doesnt make enough in their playing career to not have to go immediately into the work force when the ride ends. I watch for entertainment, I like some players/teams more than others, the guys who earn the big bucks typically earned it with their play and it doesnt bother me.
I understand what you are saying. But generally speaking more and more people are not interested in watching highly paid athletes play a game while they are figuring out how to pay for skyrocketing health insurance, college for their kids, and a whole bunch of other bills. It just doesn't make sense in the world they live in.
Clearly, that IS the determination which is yet to be made......and is what terrifies the WWL, FSN, and anyone else in the live televised sports business.
Imagine a broadcast entity saying, "Yeah ... we'll broadcast your game(s). But we keep all of the advertising revenue and we will pay your school, or conference, X% of the money raised from the $5-10-15 we charge each household to stream the game(s).
I'm late in on this, but I as others have said several factors are hurting ESPN.
1. ESPN has 4 networks channels but only enough content for 2 at the most. And NOBODY Has TO WATCH ESPN to see highlights or scores anymore. Google makes soortscenter a thing of the past.
2. Fox, CBS, & NBC all have sports networks now.
3. Basic laws of Supply and demand make 1 & 2 big issues.
4. The economy in the US is in the crapper, so cord cutting leaves more room for other alternatives.
5. Technology allows for cord cutting. Cable TV is where newspapers were about 10-15 years back. I don't even read newspapers anymore. It's an archaic form of news. In 15 years will people still watch TV via cable (I went to DirecTV never to go back to cable, will I even be with DirecTV or Dish in 5 years)?
6. I think Sports in General are in a bubble. You had the tech bubble, the housing bubble, and the banking bubble. I think the sports bubble will be the next to burst, especially for espn. Things always change. Montgomery Ward used to the largest dept store chain in the world then replaced by Sears and JC Penney. One is totally gone and the other 2 are on their death beds. ESPN, the world wide leader, may be a Montgomery Ward one day.
1. ESPN has 4 networks channels but only enough content for 2 at the most. And NOBODY Has TO WATCH ESPN to see highlights or scores anymore. Google makes soortscenter a thing of the past.
2. Fox, CBS, & NBC all have sports networks now.
3. Basic laws of Supply and demand make 1 & 2 big issues.
4. The economy in the US is in the crapper, so cord cutting leaves more room for other alternatives.
5. Technology allows for cord cutting. Cable TV is where newspapers were about 10-15 years back. I don't even read newspapers anymore. It's an archaic form of news. In 15 years will people still watch TV via cable (I went to DirecTV never to go back to cable, will I even be with DirecTV or Dish in 5 years)?
6. I think Sports in General are in a bubble. You had the tech bubble, the housing bubble, and the banking bubble. I think the sports bubble will be the next to burst, especially for espn. Things always change. Montgomery Ward used to the largest dept store chain in the world then replaced by Sears and JC Penney. One is totally gone and the other 2 are on their death beds. ESPN, the world wide leader, may be a Montgomery Ward one day.
Actually .... Montgomery Ward is still around. But they are so insignificant that you thought they were gone.
I, too, live in Atlanta and it is a sports town both college and pro. UGA packs them in each Saturday. GT is a bit more like BC but does well when they're winning. You only have to look at two of the grandest pro sports palaces currently under construction here to realize the interest in football and baseball. I live one mile from the new Braves stadium and can walk to it. It's really something...and I'm a Boston boy who loves Fenway! I could walk to that too. I'm trying to become a Falcons and Braves fan but will always be a Patriots and Red Sox fan first.
Similar threads
