ESPN | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

ESPN

I'm 26 and I used to love watching the 11PM sportscenter 10 years ago. Think how far we've come since then. Twitter actually killed any sports highlight show you can think of. Why would I wait until 11PM when I can see a clip on twitter a moment after it happens?


I think this is the best explanation for me and how I now watch ESPN.
 
I agree with some, but not all. ESPN has gone to crap as a result of the format changes. What used to be niche channel that showed logrolling at 2am and a few different games turned into a property where they make their own shows and try to make people like them. I will never enjoy watching or listening to Stephen A. Smith or Skip Bayless. It's cheaper to self-produce content than acquire the rights to it. And "reality TV" including the format of 2 ex-coaches, 2 ex-players, and a TV person yelling at each other is the cheapest. All cable channels have done some variation of it to this point. If these train wrecks didn't generate cost-effective ratings, they wouldn't be doing it.

That said, it is a news organization in some sense and they can't shy away from covering news in the sports industry. Being an inclusive company that represents the view of all people who participate in sports is their stated position. They can't just ignore some issues because they may be icky or problematic to someone. African Americans in professional sports used to be a taboo topic, too. Should they ignore the special olympics because it's too touchy feely? the make-a-wish kid who gets to visit his favorite team and make a basket/score a goal/catch a pass? the first openly gay/bi/etc athlete? The kid throwing out the first pitch to his veteran father/mother? Where's your line? None of it? All of it? They can't pick and choose what they're showing. If they're showing Americans, they're going to be showing something that someone doesn't agree with. Thinigs being apolitical is a ficitioous thing. People think that scientific peer review is biased, you think your sporting coverage is going to ignore something because it might offend someone?

They're losing subscribers because people are cutting cable to get away from overpriced channel bundles and ESPN has long overemphasized their own properties instead of sporting events.

Their website sucks, too.

I think some of you are reading way more into what I'm saying than you should. This doesn't have anything to do with if the issues have merit, are "icky" or all-inclusive (which is an impossibility, btw), it has to do with the fact that ESPN was once a station that focused on actual sport and sporting events, not the other peripheral issues surrounding it. Now, if that's the direction they want to go (again, I analogize it to MTV's format change), then so be it. But, because of it, I believe they HAVE lost viewership, cord cutting or not. Again, I, and I'm sure many others, watch for the sports and that's it. I will not waste my time on the other things.
 
I need an explanation of "cord cutting". The only thing I understand about it is that you're not getting the games via Comcast, FiOS, Time-Warner, etc., because you're no longer their customer. Now here's where I lose understanding of what's going on. To watch the games that only appear on one of the ESPNs you have to get Roku, etc., plugged into your TV via some port on the back of the TV. My understanding is that Roku, etc., are not free. If they're allowed to transfer ESPN's games to your TV don't they have to pay a fee to ESPN? Everyone says "ESPN is losing subscribers." Are they really losing them if everyone who has one of those devices gets ESPN? Or is the point that they don't get as much money from Roku, etc., that they did from Comcast, FiOS, and Time-Warner, etc.? Ms. Hoo's That wants to end our cable subscriptions, but she also fully understands that I have to have the ESPNs and Comcast SportsNet (our RSN for the ACC games). If we do that am I no longer a subscriber to the ESPNs and CSN even though I'm getting their content coming into my TV through a different port?
To access ESPN content via devices, you are essentially running the WatchESPN app on those devices. The WatchESPN app authenticates your ESPN access via your provider. In short, you're ("legally") only able to access ESPN content via these devices if you already subscribe to ESPN.

As more and more people cut the cord they are likely "borrowing" a friend's/relative's provider credentials to access ESPN content. Don't be surprised to see changes in ESPN's authentication method... along with a possible cap on the number of concurrent streams.
 
To access ESPN content via devices, you are essentially running the WatchESPN app on those devices. The WatchESPN app authenticates your ESPN access via your provider. In short, you're ("legally") only able to access ESPN content via these devices if you already subscribe to ESPN.

As more and more people cut the cord they are likely "borrowing" a friend's/relative's provider credentials to access ESPN content. Don't be surprised to see changes in ESPN's authentication method... along with a possible cap on the number of concurrent streams.
Yeah that was my cord cutting method, used me parents' credentials to login to the WatchESPN app. I ended up moving back to DirecTV because the savings were negligible based on the amount of money I was spending on drinks and food every time I went out to watch NFL and NBA games.
 
ESPN will still survive solely on live sports. There is nothing that can ever beat live sports. However they need to cater to audiences. I'm curious why they don't follow the news model. Do "regional" sports shows and then at 10 or 11 do a 'national' broadcasted show. You can get the news updated to the second on your phone - and yet people still watch. There's something there for sports too.
 
I need an explanation of "cord cutting".
What the Cusian said.

Several companies sell their channels to the cable companies for a fee (say $2 per month per subscriber). The cable company delivers the channel to the subscriber for $2 + the delivery fee + profit. Theoretically, this was how cable evolved. Pay a subscription rate and media companies would be less dependent on advertising. The problem that has happened over the years is that the revenue from subscribers was fantastic and they could charge for advertising, too. It all led to bloat (400 channels and nothing on). For example, ESPN is a highly rated channel, so to increase revenue, they can charge the cable company more to carry it. To further increase revenue, ESPN can either jack up their rate (which they have) or add more channels to their bundle (if a cable company wants to deliver ESPN for $2, they now have to deliver ESPN 2 for $1.75 and ESPN News for a $1) so that bundle cost is more. Other media companies do the same thing and voila, you're paying for 200 channels, and you consistently watch 12 or whatever so you're paying a subscription fee for a bunch of channels you have zero interest in. You can't control how many channels the cable company provides you for your monthly bill because the packages are structured so the typical family almost has to have the full package to keep everyone happy. Additionally, cable companies want to maximize their revenue, so they rent you DVRs for astronomical prices and make it difficult for you to cancel or modify your subscriptions. ESPN in particular is a very expensive bundle that 100% of cable subscribers are pay for but maybe 25% actually watch.

Ideally, you could subscribe to the 12 channels you want, but this is difficult because several media companies own their own suite of oftentimes dissimilar channels and refuse to sell them separately, and it takes a lot of revenue from small media companies and kills innovation (however, vimeo and youtube have become a sort of incubator for media). AMC could never have done something like Breaking Bad or Walking Dead if they didn't have the revenue.

When a household cuts the cable cord, you can pick to some degree what you would like (slingTV for one has a couple of packages, but you're still paying for a bundle of channels - for me, it's great, because I only need ESPN for college basketball season, so I can cancel at the end of March - same with HBO and game of thrones). I think single channel subscriptions aren't viable because the revenue isn't enough. Netflix and Hulu offer some great content as well as being able to timeshift your viewing much like a DVR. Ultimately, after cutting cable, I only pay probably $10 less a month, but I can cancel some packages and netflix or hulu, HBO based on how I feel. We don't watch a ton of TV in the summer, so I put most of the subscriptions on hold. Over the course of the year, I pay less.
 
ESPN will still survive solely on live sports. There is nothing that can ever beat live sports. However they need to cater to audiences. I'm curious why they don't follow the news model. Do "regional" sports shows and then at 10 or 11 do a 'national' broadcasted show. You can get the news updated to the second on your phone - and yet people still watch. There's something there for sports too.
Well, there's a suggestion. For the rest so upset with ESPN, what else would you suggest?

I would say they need to hold onto top talent, and stop looking for cookie cutter anchor personalities that need to conform to the ESPN business model. Keep people that are genuinely funny and intriguing.

Hold onto people that do outside-the-box stuff. Stop making every sports program a debate. PTI and First Take are enough. Think of something else

And ESPN is definitely skewed left. How often were they airing anti Trump comments by major athletes after the election? You mean to tell me every major sports athlete was anti Trump? Maybe they just did it so they have something to discuss. I'll give them that. But come on.

And don't get me started on MTV and how they get rid of anything that's worthwhile
 
A) The WatchESPN app sucks. Not just "needs work" or "is ok"... no, it absolutely sucks. If I stop watching an event on my phone to answer a text, it freezes up 95% of the time and I have to delete the app and download it again for it to work. I've talked to multiple other people who have this issue as well.

B) Someone mentioned Twitter and it's destruction of highlight shows and they are so correct. The NBA is all over Twitter and I don't need to tune into some guy cracking corny jokes on SC to watch the highlight.

C) Their highlight show isn't even a highlight show anymore. They show highlights from like 5 teams and spend the rest of the show talking about it.

D) The politicization of the network is obnoxious. Someone spoke earlier about not caring about AA issues when a majority of the athletes are AA but I'm quite sure that same poster got sick and tired of hearing about how amazingly incredible Tim Tebow was. Correct me if I'm wrong there. People don't care either way. They don't want to hear incessant talk about Kaepernick or Tebow or Ray Rice and then be told how to think by the morality police on a friggin sports channel.

E) The talent issue. Agreed. They are losing that battle for sure.
 
ESPN will still survive solely on live sports. There is nothing that can ever beat live sports. However they need to cater to audiences. I'm curious why they don't follow the news model. Do "regional" sports shows and then at 10 or 11 do a 'national' broadcasted show. You can get the news updated to the second on your phone - and yet people still watch. There's something there for sports too.

No doubt! Just as video killed the radio star, the advent of the DVR as immensely effected non-live programming and the revenue stream it once generated. Advertiser's ($$$) realize that live events is where people still watch their ads and it's their best bang for their buck.
 
LOL at the people still thinking their political slant is what is costing them ratings.

By this logic, FS1 should be kicking their ass. Are they? How are their ratings?
 
I think some of you are reading way more into what I'm saying than you should. This doesn't have anything to do with if the issues have merit, are "icky" or all-inclusive (which is an impossibility, btw), it has to do with the fact that ESPN was once a station that focused on actual sport and sporting events, not the other peripheral issues surrounding it. Now, if that's the direction they want to go (again, I analogize it to MTV's format change), then so be it. But, because of it, I believe they HAVE lost viewership, cord cutting or not. Again, I, and I'm sure many others, watch for the sports and that's it. I will not waste my time on the other things.

Honest question...
Do you watch FS1? NBCSN? CBSSN?
 
The cord cutters have killed their business model and the chickens have come home to roost. Then you combine that with how they have mismanaged their own in house product of letting every talented person walk or they have either ran them off and it's a recipe for disaster.

Unless it's a game I don't watch that channel. I mean the channel is unwatchable. SportsCenter is just hosts who are wanna be comedians telling bad jokes over highlights of dunks and home runs. I don't even call them highlights anymore because they don't show you anything of importance and give you a feel of what happened. Then after those quick highlights they just plug their other programming the rest of the day. The show sucks. Then the rest of the day until the games start are shows where its contrived argument between talking heads where they just yell at each other and are fighting sides of points you know they don't truly believe.

It was reported yesterday they want to fire Lee Corso and replace him with Les Miles. I mean if they get rid of Lee Corso is there any reason to watch that Gameday show ever again? Corso is the show!! Sure he is old, had a stroke and has his bad days sometime and and will be gone someday and have to retire, but let the guy leave on his own terms. Don't kick him out the door for Les Miles of all people!

I love Corso and I hope he gets to leave on his own terms. He does help make the show - obviously his "headgear" pick is a big deal. But I won't go so far as to say, without him I wouldn't watch. I really enjoy that show - Kirk, Rece and Desmond are all guys I enjoy listening to. I also like Pollack - and Sam Ponder is good too, for various reasons.

As far as shows, other than Gameday (both bball and cfb versions), there isn't much else I care for on espn. I can watch PTI sometimes (I like Kornheiser), but Sportscenter is unwatchable. I can't do the NFL pregame shows because Berman is such a blowhard and so incredibly full of himself. And all the other debate shows and talking heads really don't interest me very much either. Give me the games and the two gameday shows and I'm good.
 
Honest question...
Do you watch FS1? NBCSN? CBSSN?

Honest answer. Yes. Now, of course they have less sporting event content that I enjoy, so the ESPN still wins in that regard, but yes, I watch them.
 
Not in his bundle. ;)

Unfortunately, I have friggin everything in my Directv bundle. More than I need, but I can't get myself to stop paying for it. We'll see next June, when my contract comes up.
 
Honest answer. Yes. Now, of course they have less sporting event content that I enjoy, so the ESPN still wins in that regard, but yes, I watch them.

What shows on those channels do you watch? Other than the live sporting events.
 
Im not sure that complaing about a phone crashing when running a streaming app really makes a ton of sense.. its still a phone trying to do video and stream at a rate way more than its really designed to handle. phone apps crash all the time , they just try to do too much with such a small device. but thats what people want so thats what they get.
 
The day Ken Griffey Jr walked out of the ESPY awards because Norm McDonald said a joke he didn't like and the ESPN executives chased him down the hallway and dragged him back in apologizing is the day they went under. That is the day ESPN died in reality and the start of this downward spiral began. It's the day where ESPN stopped becoming the "CNN of SPORTS" and became the "ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT or ACCESS HOLLYWOOD of SPORTS."

It's at that moment they decided they needed to be "buddy buddy" with the athletes and not be objective covering them. Michael Jordan got pissed off at Sports Illustrated about 20-25 years ago and hasn't spoken with them since. You didn't see SI running out and sending him gifts and apologizing to him and doing what they had to do in order to get in his good graces. They said, tough crap, our job is to cover him not make him look good and be afraid of hurting his feelings.

Since that Ken Griffey Jr moment ESPN changed for the worse and it has never been the same. It took many years to get to this level and it has branched out into many other areas like SportsCenter and such, but it began on that day!
 
I have no idea if this is true or not, but I have read that the loss in subscriber numbers that are reported are not offset by the gain in subscriptions from streaming services, which are also pretty significant.

They are a net loss, but it might not be as bad as it sounds.
 
No - they cover athletes (and by way of TV contracts, pay) that may have a lot to say. Defining "Right or Left" is a way of ignoring problems or stories that are hard to deal with. So we put them in a "partisan news box" so they are easier to ignore. What makes an issue a partisan one?

(Not you specifically Alsacs) But if we follow a sport where a majority of the athletes are African Americans - and then say "their issues are not my issues" because of politics, then I'd suggest we need to be very careful of not being a part of the problem.
People watch sports to get away from politics, social views and the like. When you start mixing those things, peopl don't feel that sports ar ean escape from those things any longer. NFL ratings are down this year about 20%, is it because bad games...there a re bad games every year, so no.

There were several polls done and the pollsters called it the Kaepernik effect when asked people about it they specifically stated that they didn't want their sports politicized by anyone (paraphrasing there) so they tuned out.

Sports should not be mixed with anything, keep it pure and simple. That formula has worked forever. As soon as athletes start using their notoriety as a platform for change, watch the ratings drop.
 
People watch sports to get away from politics, social views and the like. When you start mixing those things, peopl don't feel that sports ar ean escape from those things any longer. NFL ratings are down this year about 20%, is it because bad games...there a re bad games every year, so no.

There were several polls done and the pollsters called it the Kaepernik effect when asked people about it they specifically stated that they didn't want their sports politicized by anyone (paraphrasing there) so they tuned out.

Sports should not be mixed with anything, keep it pure and simple. That formula has worked forever. As soon as athletes start using their notoriety as a platform for change, watch the ratings drop.

NFL ratings are not down 20 percent, not sure where you got that from
 
NFL ratings are not down 20 percent, not sure where you got that from

Really? It's been pretty well publicized ...umm almost everywhere on every network...you should read up. Here you go.

2016 NFL TV Ratings Decline: Has Diminishing Marginal Utility Finally Set In?

Here's The Real Reasons NFL TV Ratings Will Continue Downward

Bob Ryan: 10 theories why NFL TV ratings are down - The Boston Globe

NFL Ratings Decline In All But One of Last 26 Primetime Games - Breitbart

NFL's ratings decline, as explained by football fans | The MMQB with Peter King

Why NFL TV ratings are down, and why you don't have to care

NFL TV Ratings Down Significantly Again In Week 9

LeBron: Don't take fun away from the NFL

Going back to late October, Sports Illustrated reported that Monday Night Football was down 24% from 2015, Sunday Night Football was down 19% and Thursday night was down 18%.

EDIT - Show me evidence for 2016 that shows anything different.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea if this is true or not, but I have read that the loss in subscriber numbers that are reported are not offset by the gain in subscriptions from streaming services, which are also pretty significant.

They are a net loss, but it might not be as bad as it sounds.
Likely. not everyone will get a streaming service and not all who do will get ESPN.
 
NFL ratings are down because the game sucks. They've sucked the fun from it. My wife hates football, "they stand up, run into each other, fall down, stand around for 30 seconds and do it again. Then they stop it again for no reason (because there's a flag). Then they fall down. I don't get it ."

Penalties, TV timeouts, & reviews are killing that game. It's unwatchable at times.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,141
Messages
4,682,374
Members
5,900
Latest member
DizzyNY

Online statistics

Members online
300
Guests online
1,408
Total visitors
1,708


Top Bottom