It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:04 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 243 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Heads to Roll at ESPN
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:35 pm
Posts: 17873
Location: Warming up on 1st tee box
pizza_Place: Kaisers
Not sure who is making the top dollar over there these days on TV or radio but that is a lot of money to have to cut....




ESPN will lay off some of the personalities who appear on TV, radio and online.

The cuts will only affect "talent" -- not rank-and-file employees, according to sources familiar with the matter.


The details are still being finalized, but layoffs are expected to take place through June.

No announcement has been made about which personalities will be affected, but it seems those with contracts up for renewal may be cut first.

ESPN may also buy out some contracts that aren't ending soon, according to sources.

"We have long been about serving fans and innovating to create the best content for them," ESPN said in a statement. "Today's fans consume content in many different ways and we are in a continuous process of adapting to change and improving what we do. Inevitably that has consequences for how we utilize our talent. We are confident that ESPN will continue to have a roster of talent that is unequaled in sports."


The last time ESPN cut talent had layoffs was in 2015. Keith Olbermann and Bill Simmons, both of whom had expensive contracts, were among the big names who were cut loose.

Later that year, ESPN also laid off about 300 employees -- roughly 4% of the network's global workforce. During those layoffs, hosts, reporters and commentators generally weren't affected. ESPN also had a round of layoffs in 2013.

The cuts came as growing numbers of viewers unsubscribed from the cable channel, even as it's paying for costly long-term TV deals with pro sports leagues.

At the time of the 2015 cuts, it was reported that ESPN was told by its parent company, Disney, to "trim $100 million from the 2016 budget and $250 million in 2017."

_________________
Flew too close to the sun on wings of pastrami


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 38014
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Anyone making 1 million plus a year probably .

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 22543
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
badrogue17 wrote:
Anyone making 1 million plus a year probably .


That's probably an offer Sir was contemplating, but he saw the writing on the wall and stayed with SCR


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 42924
They should just get out of the radio business altogether. There can't be any money to be made there, and their product locally and nationally is trash. Stick to TV and online.

The numbers will continue to get worse for them as time progresses. People are running in droves from high cost cable subscriptions and that has been ESPN's bread and butter for years now. The ridiculous bids they made for much of their content is coming back to haunt them, and they really don't have much to brag about besides the NCAA Football championship. Outside of that they get 1 NFL playoff game, maybe a divisional series in MLB, and some NBA playoffs (with ABC taking the bulk of their marquee matchups).

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:35 pm
Posts: 17873
Location: Warming up on 1st tee box
pizza_Place: Kaisers
Douchebag wrote:
They should just get out of the radio business altogether. There can't be any money to be made there, and their product locally and nationally is trash. Stick to TV and online.

The numbers will continue to get worse for them as time progresses. People are running in droves from high cost cable subscriptions and that has been ESPN's bread and butter for years now. The ridiculous bids they made for much of their content is coming back to haunt them, and they really don't have much to brag about besides the NCAA Football championship. Outside of that they get 1 NFL playoff game, maybe a divisional series in MLB, and some NBA playoffs (with ABC taking the bulk of their marquee matchups).


The other thing they hype up a lot is the first couple rounds of the Masters before handing off to CBS for the weekend. No idea what that cost them
but it couldn't have been cheap and viewership has to be very light for those days compared to the 3rd and 4th rounds. I'm glad that they have it,
but I'd be surprised if they make much money off of those time slots.

_________________
Flew too close to the sun on wings of pastrami


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:46 pm
Posts: 9900
pizza_Place: Q's Hillside
This helps explain why Greenberg is going to the TV side. They've actually invested a lot in their radio side, with Dan LeBatard and with Bomani Jones.

They need to cut the roster of football analysts and field reporters. They have too many of them.

And I don't think the SEC and Longhorn Networks are really helping their bottom line.

_________________
“Build a man a fire and he’s warm for a day. But set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
You guys may be right about the radio portion of their business, but look at these number for the "Media Networks" portion of their business:

$23.7B in annual revenues up 2% in 2016 over 2015 and up 10% in 2015 over 2014. Segment operating income of $7.8B in 2016 flat from 2015 , while 2015 was 6% over 2014. Page 31 in the 10-k.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... 3AA796E6C7

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 42924
T-Bone wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
They should just get out of the radio business altogether. There can't be any money to be made there, and their product locally and nationally is trash. Stick to TV and online.

The numbers will continue to get worse for them as time progresses. People are running in droves from high cost cable subscriptions and that has been ESPN's bread and butter for years now. The ridiculous bids they made for much of their content is coming back to haunt them, and they really don't have much to brag about besides the NCAA Football championship. Outside of that they get 1 NFL playoff game, maybe a divisional series in MLB, and some NBA playoffs (with ABC taking the bulk of their marquee matchups).


The other thing they hype up a lot is the first couple rounds of the Masters before handing off to CBS for the weekend. No idea what that cost them
but it couldn't have been cheap and viewership has to be very light for those days compared to the 3rd and 4th rounds. I'm glad that they have it,
but I'd be surprised if they make much money off of those time slots.

Yep, that could not have come cheap either.

ESPN pays $2 Billion per year for a shit MNF schedule and one wild card game. They outbid the nearest competition by $500 million per year. :lol: :lol:

In comparison, NBC which has a very similar schedule of games (1 game per week & limited playoffs) pays $950 million per year. And they even get the Super Bowl once every 3 years. They also usually have one of the best games every week compared to the trash that ESPN rolls out on Monday's.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Douchebag wrote:
T-Bone wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
They should just get out of the radio business altogether. There can't be any money to be made there, and their product locally and nationally is trash. Stick to TV and online.

The numbers will continue to get worse for them as time progresses. People are running in droves from high cost cable subscriptions and that has been ESPN's bread and butter for years now. The ridiculous bids they made for much of their content is coming back to haunt them, and they really don't have much to brag about besides the NCAA Football championship. Outside of that they get 1 NFL playoff game, maybe a divisional series in MLB, and some NBA playoffs (with ABC taking the bulk of their marquee matchups).


The other thing they hype up a lot is the first couple rounds of the Masters before handing off to CBS for the weekend. No idea what that cost them
but it couldn't have been cheap and viewership has to be very light for those days compared to the 3rd and 4th rounds. I'm glad that they have it,
but I'd be surprised if they make much money off of those time slots.

Yep, that could not have come cheap either.

ESPN pays $2 Billion per year for a shit MNF schedule and one wild card game. They outbid the nearest competition by $500 million per year. :lol: :lol:

In comparison, NBC which has a very similar schedule of games (1 game per week & limited playoffs) pays $950 million per year. And they even get the Super Bowl once every 3 years. They also usually have one of the best games every week compared to the trash that ESPN rolls out on Monday's.


This guy have been saying ESPN is doomed for years: http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn- ... ent-030617

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
This guy have been saying ESPN is doomed for years: http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn- ... ent-030617


Quote:
That business collapse at ESPN has caused a panic at the network, a desperate grab for relevance that has led to a pronounced leftward move. ESPN's trying desperately to stay relevant as ratings collapse and subscribers flee. The decision? "We'll be MSESPN, the home for far left wing politics and sports!" Only, it's not working.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Sounds like a normal person.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:46 pm
Posts: 9900
pizza_Place: Q's Hillside
The other thing is that ESPN was sort of hoarding/rewarding key talent to bulk up against the supposed challenge of FS1/FS2. That turned out to be a waste of money, as FS1 appears to have been managed by Bebe North and Garry Meier's wife.

Now that the threat is obviously over, they can start shedding some of that extra spending.

_________________
“Build a man a fire and he’s warm for a day. But set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20574
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Kirkwood wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
This guy have been saying ESPN is doomed for years: http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn- ... ent-030617


Quote:
That business collapse at ESPN has caused a panic at the network, a desperate grab for relevance that has led to a pronounced leftward move. ESPN's trying desperately to stay relevant as ratings collapse and subscribers flee. The decision? "We'll be MSESPN, the home for far left wing politics and sports!" Only, it's not working.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Sounds like a normal person.


He's not wrong. The network's recent swerve to the left politically is something even ESPN higher-ups have noticed.

I don't think it's right to pin losing subscribers on the shift, but ratings are down even accounting for loss of subscribers, and I think the ideological hue of most of their content has something to do with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Quote:
But of course you wouldn't recall it.

Because rather than explain that friendship every athlete was praised to the high heavens for being friends with Obama.

How else to explain the lionization of Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee during the national anthem or the Missouri protesters for their fake protest that has nearly killed the university? How else to explain the continued coverage of each athlete who doesn't visit the White House or the every critical word of the king of triggered millenials, LeBron James? How about the villainization of Peyton Manning for a twenty year old mooning, Ryan Lochte for peeing outside, and Grayson Allen for having the absolute gall to trip someone during a basketball game?

None of his examples make any sense. This guy is looney toons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 18863
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Kirkwood wrote:
Quote:
But of course you wouldn't recall it.

Because rather than explain that friendship every athlete was praised to the high heavens for being friends with Obama.

How else to explain the lionization of Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee during the national anthem or the Missouri protesters for their fake protest that has nearly killed the university? How else to explain the continued coverage of each athlete who doesn't visit the White House or the every critical word of the king of triggered millenials, LeBron James? How about the villainization of Peyton Manning for a twenty year old mooning, Ryan Lochte for peeing outside, and Grayson Allen for having the absolute gall to trip someone during a basketball game?

None of his examples make any sense. This guy is looney toons.


Why don't they talk about Mike Vick and Greg Hardy anymore? And WTF was that hit piece they did on poor Joe Mixon, didnt they watch the tape???

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
SpiralStairs wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Quote:
But of course you wouldn't recall it.

Because rather than explain that friendship every athlete was praised to the high heavens for being friends with Obama.

How else to explain the lionization of Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee during the national anthem or the Missouri protesters for their fake protest that has nearly killed the university? How else to explain the continued coverage of each athlete who doesn't visit the White House or the every critical word of the king of triggered millenials, LeBron James? How about the villainization of Peyton Manning for a twenty year old mooning, Ryan Lochte for peeing outside, and Grayson Allen for having the absolute gall to trip someone during a basketball game?

None of his examples make any sense. This guy is looney toons.


Why don't they talk about Mike Vick and Greg Hardy anymore? And WTF was that hit piece they did on poor Joe Mixon, didnt they watch the tape???

The nerve of ESPN to think exposing yourself to a female trainer is unacceptable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
They need Bill Simmons.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:52 pm
Posts: 360
pizza_Place: Local entrepreneurs only
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:


I don't think it's right to pin losing subscribers on the shift.


Good call theres just not enough data and sample size to make that argument.


Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:


I think the ideological hue of most of their content has something to do with it.


Fucking right on man

_________________
libtard's personfied:

Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
You said "naked" and bearing breasts (which are reproductive organs and thus technically "genitals" are they not?) is "naked" for all intents and purposes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 18863
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Kirkwood wrote:
SpiralStairs wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Quote:
But of course you wouldn't recall it.

Because rather than explain that friendship every athlete was praised to the high heavens for being friends with Obama.

How else to explain the lionization of Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee during the national anthem or the Missouri protesters for their fake protest that has nearly killed the university? How else to explain the continued coverage of each athlete who doesn't visit the White House or the every critical word of the king of triggered millenials, LeBron James? How about the villainization of Peyton Manning for a twenty year old mooning, Ryan Lochte for peeing outside, and Grayson Allen for having the absolute gall to trip someone during a basketball game?

None of his examples make any sense. This guy is looney toons.


Why don't they talk about Mike Vick and Greg Hardy anymore? And WTF was that hit piece they did on poor Joe Mixon, didnt they watch the tape???

The nerve of ESPN to think exposing yourself to a female trainer is unacceptable.


Who hasn't dangled their nuts in someone's face? Or traded nudes for that matter?

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
ESPN is in some serious trouble. They are losing about a million cable subscribers a quarter (largely due to cord cutting) and each of those subscribers equals about $7 a month in carriage fees plus additional losses through the decreased advertising revenue that comes with it.

On the other side of the balance sheet they just signed massive rights deals and are seeing those costs balloon without an end in sight. When your costs are rising at the same time your revenues are tanking, you have a serious issue to address.

Their shift to the left is a piece of the puzzle, but I'd say the lion's share of the problem is that ESPN has played a large role in raising the rates of cable packages and it's very easy for a non-sports fan to cut the cord and stop giving ESPN $7 a month when they have Netflix, Hulu, Prime, and HBO Go. ESPN relied on being subsidized by cable subscribers who were forced to buy ESPN as part of a bundle.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:52 pm
Posts: 12551
Location: Ex-Naperville, Ex-Homewood, Now Tinley Park
pizza_Place: Oh I'm sorry but, there's no one on the line
ESPN will merge with Lifetime to reduce costs.

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20574
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Bootstraps Max wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:


I don't think it's right to pin losing subscribers on the shift.


Good call theres just not enough data and sample size to make that argument.


Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:


I think the ideological hue of most of their content has something to do with it.


Fucking right on man


Come on BRick Lite, don't leave out the caveat:

Quote:
but ratings are down even accounting for loss of subscribers, and I think the ideological hue of most of their content has something to do with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:13 pm
Posts: 15062
pizza_Place: Four hours away....and on fire :-(
Bring back Cold Pizza and the Budweiser Hot Seat.

_________________
-- source


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:25 pm
Posts: 4210
pizza_Place: pizza and subs
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
ESPN is in some serious trouble. They are losing about a million cable subscribers a quarter (largely due to cord cutting) and each of those subscribers equals about $7 a month in carriage fees plus additional losses through the decreased advertising revenue that comes with it.

On the other side of the balance sheet they just signed massive rights deals and are seeing those costs balloon without an end in sight. When your costs are rising at the same time your revenues are tanking, you have a serious issue to address.

Their shift to the left is a piece of the puzzle, but I'd say the lion's share of the problem is that ESPN has played a large role in raising the rates of cable packages and it's very easy for a non-sports fan to cut the cord and stop giving ESPN $7 a month when they have Netflix, Hulu, Prime, and HBO Go. ESPN relied on being subsidized by cable subscribers who were forced to buy ESPN as part of a bundle.


this.

the only reason we still have dish is because of sports to be honest. if i could susbscribe to watch espn, it would be gone. if we weren't bound by a gig cap with our internet, we would switch to sling or psvue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
Blaming politics for this is about as dumb as saying the decline in NFL ratings last season was because of guys not standing for the national anthem. Also Clay Travis is a hack and I wouldn't believe any of his numbers (or anything he says in general) for a second, most especially since he's currently stuck in the void known as Fox Sports 1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20574
pizza_Place: Giordano's
ZephMarshack wrote:
Blaming politics for this is about as dumb as saying the decline in NFL ratings last season was because of guys not standing for the national anthem. Also Clay Travis is a hack and I wouldn't believe any of his numbers (or anything he says in general) for a second, most especially since he's currently stuck in the void known as Fox Sports 1.


Nobody, including Travis, is placing the onus of subscriber loss and ratings decline squarely on the politics of the Mothership. Denying that it can play a role in ratings decline, though, is silly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
Blaming politics for this is about as dumb as saying the decline in NFL ratings last season was because of guys not standing for the national anthem. Also Clay Travis is a hack and I wouldn't believe any of his numbers (or anything he says in general) for a second, most especially since he's currently stuck in the void known as Fox Sports 1.


Nobody, including Travis, is placing the onus of subscriber loss and ratings decline squarely on the politics of the Mothership. Denying that it can play a role in ratings decline, though, is silly.

He's literally written drivel like this trying to frame politics as one of the primary reasons (http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn- ... eft-020817). You can cite an endless amount of reasons for any widespread decline in ratings, and claim that each of those "played a role," but I'm gonna go ahead and say the political ones are pretty damn far down the list.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20574
pizza_Place: Giordano's
ZephMarshack wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
Blaming politics for this is about as dumb as saying the decline in NFL ratings last season was because of guys not standing for the national anthem. Also Clay Travis is a hack and I wouldn't believe any of his numbers (or anything he says in general) for a second, most especially since he's currently stuck in the void known as Fox Sports 1.


Nobody, including Travis, is placing the onus of subscriber loss and ratings decline squarely on the politics of the Mothership. Denying that it can play a role in ratings decline, though, is silly.

He's literally written drivel like this trying to frame politics as one of the primary reasons (http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn- ... eft-020817). You can cite an endless amount of reasons for any widespread decline in ratings, and claim that each of those "played a role," but I'm gonna go ahead and say the political ones are pretty damn far down the list.


It's an issue ESPN has independently identified, as well: http://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/post ... l-dynamics

Here's the closing lines:

Quote:
I don’t believe there’s malice intended, either. But, in talking to people in the course of reporting this piece, it is clear that ESPN has a challenge in front of it. I don’t think the answer is to try to stifle those with strong viewpoints; rather, it’s to make sure a broader range of voices are heard.

Why, some might ask? Because, at heart, ESPN is a business. And based on a Gallup survey on political affiliation from mid-September, 44 percent of the country identifies itself as either “Republican” or “leans Republican.” That’s less than the 49 percent that identifies itself as “Democrat” or “leans Democrat,” but not by much.

If ESPN continues to let its personalities debate the issues of the day but finds a way to better balance those conversations, it will be richer for it. In more ways than one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
An ombudsman making a throwaway comment about a party affiliation and good business in a column that's as much about internal political exchanges as what gets aired does not suddenly establish anything resembling a causal connection for the agenda Travis is pushing.

I'm gonna go ahead and stick with the idea that ESPN bidding against itself for contracts (especially for shitty deals like their current NFL agreement) and facing the same problems all networks are facing as a result of cord cutting are orders of magnitude more important than people turning the network off in disgust because there are too many liberals. And I'm gonna say that Travis' idea remains as silly as the notion that Kaepernick, et. al. had a major impact on the NFL's ratings decline.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:25 pm
Posts: 4210
pizza_Place: pizza and subs
ZephMarshack wrote:
Blaming politics for this is about as dumb as saying the decline in NFL ratings last season was because of guys not standing for the national anthem. Also Clay Travis is a hack and I wouldn't believe any of his numbers (or anything he says in general) for a second, most especially since he's currently stuck in the void known as Fox Sports 1.


clay travis has nothing to do with FS1. He's under the purview of Premiere Radio Networks which is an entirely different entity than the Fox Entertainment Group. He, DP, and Eisen have nothing to do with that channel. Clay is ok. better than any of the other fox morning shows they've had (beside Czaban). Dude has been adding affiliates like no other the past year. def better than mike and mike and mully and hanley.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
I can't speak for others, but for my part, I only watch ESPN for live sports. The league affiliated networks do a better job of recapping sports than SportsCenter. Quick Pitch might be my favorite show of this type, but even the NHL Network is solid. For basketball, I think TNT is the class. ESPN is just too general and sprays all over the place.

I used to like the Pardon the Interruption genre, but that stuff gets old. It's just a bunch of contrived arguments.

I never care for the SJW and political crap that creeps into sports. But I was way passed watching ESPN by the time this became an issue.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 243 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group