Here is my simple solution for ESPN

[mdpitt]

I want more Lumberjacks, Australian Rules Football and other ridiculous programming in the off hours. Every 20 minutes or so have real highlights and less speculation and rumors.

Give me normal uglier people who know sports. I'm not sure why it drives me nuts seeing a shiny stage with people who look like the choice of clothes was THE most important decision they made.

Strip the channel down, keep the big events, more bull riding in off hours and smash up derby.

I don't care about sports rumors, speculation and opinion on feelings of athletes.

 

[PantherO]

I used to love watching the Australian Rules Football.

I want more Lumberjacks, Australian Rules Football and other ridiculous programming in the off hours. Every 20 minutes or so have real highlights and less speculation and rumors.

Give me normal uglier people who know sports. I'm not sure why it drives me nuts seeing a shiny stage with people who look like the choice of clothes was THE most important decision they made.

Strip the channel down, keep the big events, more bull riding in off hours and smash up derby.

I don't care about sports rumors, speculation and opinion on feelings of athletes.

 

[Jpripper88]

I want more Lumberjacks, Australian Rules Football and other ridiculous programming in the off hours. Every 20 minutes or so have real highlights and less speculation and rumors.

Give me normal uglier people who know sports. I'm not sure why it drives me nuts seeing a shiny stage with people who look like the choice of clothes was THE most important decision they made.

Strip the channel down, keep the big events, more bull riding in off hours and smash up derby.

I don't care about sports rumors, speculation and opinion on feelings of athletes.

Almost all the women on ESPN are, at best, average and old now, too.

 

[upj87]

I used to love watching the Australian Rules Football.

true dat... there was nothing more exciting than seeing the ref walk up to the baseline under the goal post thingee, stone-faced standing firmly at attention and then crisply and in rapid fashion bringing one or two hands down gunslinger style to denote whatever the hell score just happened.... Truly, a breathtaking spectacle not unlike the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace by their ancestry. . . Helluva lot more entertaining than anything that Bomani Jones has to say.

 

[pittdan77]

true dat... there was nothing more exciting than seeing the ref walk up to the baseline under the goal post thingee, stone-faced standing firmly at attention and then crisply and in rapid fashion bringing one or two hands down gunslinger style to denote whatever the hell score just happened.... Truly, a breathtaking spectacle not unlike the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace by their ancestry. . . Helluva lot more entertaining than anything that Bomani Jones has to say.

They got rid of the cool white hats though. Looks like a guy that just jumped out of an SUV wearing his coaching gear for a kid's soccer game.

 

[pittdan77]

Now this get-up was cool asf.

 

[joeydavid]

You forgot Roller Derby.

I want more Lumberjacks, Australian Rules Football and other ridiculous programming in the off hours. Every 20 minutes or so have real highlights and less speculation and rumors.

Give me normal uglier people who know sports. I'm not sure why it drives me nuts seeing a shiny stage with people who look like the choice of clothes was THE most important decision they made.

Strip the channel down, keep the big events, more bull riding in off hours and smash up derby.

I don't care about sports rumors, speculation and opinion on feelings of athletes.

 

[pitt-girl]

true dat... there was nothing more exciting than seeing the ref walk up to the baseline under the goal post thingee, stone-faced standing firmly at attention and then crisply and in rapid fashion bringing one or two hands down gunslinger style to denote whatever the hell score just happened.... Truly, a breathtaking spectacle not unlike the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace by their ancestry. . . Helluva lot more entertaining than anything that Bomani Jones has to say.

Great description.

 

[Ski11585]

true dat... there was nothing more exciting than seeing the ref walk up to the baseline under the goal post thingee, stone-faced standing firmly at attention and then crisply and in rapid fashion bringing one or two hands down gunslinger style to denote whatever the hell score just happened.... Truly, a breathtaking spectacle not unlike the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace by their ancestry. . . Helluva lot more entertaining than anything that Bomani Jones has to say.

Been listening to Bomani since 2009. He is probably the smartest and best voice working for ESPN.

 

[JD1976]

true dat... there was nothing more exciting than seeing the ref walk up to the baseline under the goal post thingee, stone-faced standing firmly at attention and then crisply and in rapid fashion bringing one or two hands down gunslinger style to denote whatever the hell score just happened.... Truly, a breathtaking spectacle not unlike the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace by their ancestry. . . Helluva lot more entertaining than anything that Bomani Jones has to say.

As a kid, I used to get up at 7:30 on saturdays to watch Aussie Rules Football on ESPN. Sunday mornings were 4 hours of fishing and hunting shows, even on NFL Sundays. Basically what NBCSN is now.

 

[Jpripper88]

Been listening to Bomani since 2009. He is probably the smartest and best voice working for ESPN.

He is a race baiter, though.

 

[Ski11585]

He is a race baiter, though.

Disagree 100%. He talks about race as it's relevant, and I think he generally takes a far more nuanced stance than you hear on sports talk radio.

 

[Jpripper88]

Disagree 100%. He talks about race as it's relevant, and I think he generally takes a far more nuanced stance than you hear on sports talk radio.

That would certainly change the view of him. I think he inserts race whenever he can, in order to spike his mentions and notoriety. I don't think the fact he is more intelligent and articulate about it makes him any better than your run of the mill shock jock.

To each their own and I think we know that we disagree pretty substantially on common societal/guilt issues. At least we can agree on the misery that is our Pitt fandom!!

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Disagree 100%. He talks about race as it's relevant, and I think he generally takes a far more nuanced stance than you hear on sports talk radio.

But Ski, again, ESPN is trying to appeal to 50% of the population in all of its op/ed style takes. And we are so polarized as a society now, people are tired (turned off) by constantly having those takes shoved down their throats. Maybe they feel they are doing what is right, providing voice and attention to these details, but it does come with a price. And that is lack of interest. I am just looking at this from a purely business model.

 

[Jpripper88]

But Ski, again, ESPN is trying to appeal to 50% of the population in all of its op/ed style takes. And we are so polarized as a society now, people are tired (turned off) by constantly having those takes shoved down their throats. Maybe they feel they are doing what is right, providing voice and attention to these details, but it does come with a price. And that is lack of interest. I am just looking at this from a purely business model.

I think their biggest problem is they are trying to appeal to, not 50%, about 10-20% of the population and most of those folks don't even care about sports and/or have the disposable income to be a beneficial target audience. Outside of live programming (which they have outrageously overpaid for) I think they are destroying their audience. Hopefully they fail and they fail huge.

 

[OH Pete]

I want more Lumberjacks, Australian Rules Football and other ridiculous programming in the off hours. Every 20 minutes or so have real highlights and less speculation and rumors.

Give me normal uglier people who know sports. I'm not sure why it drives me nuts seeing a shiny stage with people who look like the choice of clothes was THE most important decision they made.

Strip the channel down, keep the big events, more bull riding in off hours and smash up derby.

I don't care about sports rumors, speculation and opinion on feelings of athletes.

They need to bring back something like the old ABC's Wide World of Sports. Every dude from my generation remembers that show vividly. They'd feature Cliff Diving, a drag race, a boxing match and then maybe mix in an Evel Knievel stunt. All in one glorious afternoon. Then the next week, it'd be skiing, international hockey, & judo. It was must see TV for me growing up. I also would like to see them bring back "Superstars", but I'm guessing that most pro contracts won't allow for their players to risk injury in a competition like that. But I'd even settle for a return of "Battle of the Network Stars". Catherine Bach in the dunk tank still enters my mind now and again.

 

[topdecktiger]

Outside of live programming (which they have outrageously overpaid for) I think they are destroying their audience.

That's been their only audience from the beginning. All this other programming was and is nothing but filler in between live sports.

 

[Jpripper88]

That's been their only audience from the beginning. All this other programming was and is nothing but filler in between live sports.

That definitely isn't true. They had viewers that most definitely turned to ESPN for other programming and reporting. Those viewers are leaving in droves. Hell, many of them are leaving despite potentially missing out on those live sports.

 

[pittdan77]

That's been their only audience from the beginning. All this other programming was and is nothing but filler in between live sports.

ESPN was definitely better when it was a sports news channel. The problem is, I can find out whatever I want in about thirty seconds of scrolling on Twitter.

 

[Jpripper88]

ESPN was definitely better when it was a sports news channel. The problem is, I can find out whatever I want in about thirty seconds of scrolling on Twitter.

Agreed, but I still think there would be a market for Sportscenter as stats and highlights that actually show what happened. Their highlights became showing one swing of the at bat, which 8 times out of 10 had nothing to do with the outcome of the game and two partial stat lines.

 

[topdecktiger]

That definitely isn't true. They had viewers that most definitely turned to ESPN for other programming and reporting. Those viewers are leaving in droves. Hell, many of them are leaving despite potentially missing out on those live sports.

Yes it is. ESPN has ALWAYS made its living off of sporting events. That has always, always been the overwhelming majority of their income and ratings. ESPN has never depended on these other shows, whether it's Pardon The Interruption, Around the Horn, those morning exercise shows, or anything else. Sports events have always been ESPN's bread and butter, not the studio shows.

It's not viewers that are the problem. If you go look at the ratings, there isn't all that much of a difference. The problem is they are losing subscribers, mostly people who weren't watching ESPN in the first place.

 

[Jpripper88]

Yes it is. ESPN has ALWAYS made its living off of sporting events. That has always, always been the overwhelming majority of their income and ratings. ESPN has never depended on these other shows, whether it's Pardon The Interruption, Around the Horn, those morning exercise shows, or anything else. Sports events have always been ESPN's bread and butter, not the studio shows.

It's not viewers that are the problem. If you go look at the ratings, there isn't all that much of a difference. The problem is they are losing subscribers, mostly people who weren't watching ESPN in the first place.

That's not what you said. You said "that's been their only audience from the beginning".

That is wrong.

ESPN has seen huge ratings drops in the last decade. They are also, yes, losing lots of subscribers who used to watch and who never watched.

 

[topdecktiger]

That's not what you said. You said "that's been their only audience from the beginning".

That is wrong.

ESPN has seen huge ratings drops in the last decade. They are also, yes, losing lots of subscribers who used to watch and who never watched.

No, it's not wrong. There hasn't been an audience for the studio shows. The audience has been for sports events. If all ESPN did was televise PTI, or Around the Horn, they would have been out of business 20 years ago. Those studio shows have never had significant viewers. With most of those shows, ESPN actually loses money. Where ESPN has drawn its viewers is from the sporting events. NFL, CFB, etc. are what actually pay the bills at ESPN. PTI and ATH don't. They don't have enough viewers, and don't generate enough ad revenue.

ESPN has also not seen "huge" ratings drops. The ratings are fairly consistent. ESPN's drop in revenue is due to subscriber loss, not ratings drops.

 

[Revenge Of The Noise]

They need to bring back something like the old ABC's Wide World of Sports. Every dude from my generation remembers that show vividly. They'd feature Cliff Diving, a drag race, a boxing match and then maybe mix in an Evel Knievel stunt. All in one glorious afternoon. Then the next week, it'd be skiing, international hockey, & judo. It was must see TV for me growing up. I also would like to see them bring back "Superstars", but I'm guessing that most pro contracts won't allow for their players to risk injury in a competition like that. But I'd even settle for a return of "Battle of the Network Stars". Catherine Bach in the dunk tank still enters my mind now and again.

I can't "like" this enough. Those were great shows.

I loved "This Week In Baseball" in that era too. Still can hear that opening music and the announcer...

 

[BradlyPitt]

bring back the fitness shows and bodybuilding contests they had in the 90's

 

[USN_Panther]

They need to bring back something like the old ABC's Wide World of Sports. Every dude from my generation remembers that show vividly. They'd feature Cliff Diving, a drag race, a boxing match and then maybe mix in an Evel Knievel stunt. All in one glorious afternoon. Then the next week, it'd be skiing, international hockey, & judo. It was must see TV for me growing up. I also would like to see them bring back "Superstars", but I'm guessing that most pro contracts won't allow for their players to risk injury in a competition like that. But I'd even settle for a return of "Battle of the Network Stars". Catherine Bach in the dunk tank still enters my mind now and again.

This was back when you could watch a real title fight on network TV in the lower weight classes. They had some really good fights on. Now it is all PPV or HBO/Showtime. The loss of exposure has hurt boxing as it has really been surpassed by MMA.

 

[Jpripper88]

No, it's not wrong. There hasn't been an audience for the studio shows. The audience has been for sports events. If all ESPN did was televise PTI, or Around the Horn, they would have been out of business 20 years ago. Those studio shows have never had significant viewers. With most of those shows, ESPN actually loses money. Where ESPN has drawn its viewers is from the sporting events. NFL, CFB, etc. are what actually pay the bills at ESPN. PTI and ATH don't. They don't have enough viewers, and don't generate enough ad revenue.

ESPN has also not seen "huge" ratings drops. The ratings are fairly consistent. ESPN's drop in revenue is due to subscriber loss, not ratings drops.

No, you are wrong. They did/do have an audience for those offerings beyond just live sports. They certainly are not their focus or the biggest revenue generators. Not close, but there is an audience. You tried to be overly general (seems to be a modus operandi) and were wrong because of that.

No, ESPN has seen huge ratings drops.

 

[CCHS82]

true dat... there was nothing more exciting than seeing the ref walk up to the baseline under the goal post thingee, stone-faced standing firmly at attention and then crisply and in rapid fashion bringing one or two hands down gunslinger style to denote whatever the hell score just happened.... Truly, a breathtaking spectacle not unlike the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace by their ancestry. . . Helluva lot more entertaining than anything that Bomani Jones has to say.

Excellent! I have a good friend that for the last 25 or so years has been imitating this! He is a big kid and won't grow up but it is funny as hell.

 

[rojo36]

Almost all the women on ESPN are, at best, average and old now, too.

But they must have flowing blond hair, A LA the White House.

 

[Jpripper88]

But they must have flowing blond hair, A LA the White House.

wat?

 

[topdecktiger]

No, you are wrong. They did/do have an audience for those offerings beyond just live sports. They certainly are not their focus or the biggest revenue generators. Not close, but there is an audience. You tried to be overly general (seems to be a modus operandi) and were wrong because of that.

No, ESPN has seen huge ratings drops.

No, ESPN hasn't seen "huge" ratings drops. Post the numbers.

"They certainly are not their focus or the biggest revenue generators. Not close"

Yeah, see that's the point. The fate of PTI or ATH has nothing to do with the viability of ESPN as a network. ESPN lives or dies based on live events. Period.

 

[Jpripper88]

No, ESPN hasn't seen "huge" ratings drops. Post the numbers.

"They certainly are not their focus or the biggest revenue generators. Not close"

Yeah, see that's the point. The fate of PTI or ATH has nothing to do with the viability of ESPN as a network. ESPN lives or dies based on live events. Period.

Here is a simple article from last year explaining 1 year drops:
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/ESPN-Starting-Have-Real-Ratings-Problems-106477.html

And, yes some of that is people dropping cable, but their competitors saw increased viewership.

Those programs (although people are mainly talking about flagship programs that weren't previously current event opinion, but really stats/highlights/updates, shows like Sportscenter, NFL Primetime, etc.) do drive an audience and right now they are clearly driving them away. That is especially true when the same "talent" pontificating on their opinion shows or on social media are then part of sports broadcasts either directly bringing those same opinions during live sports or have left such a bad impression, they still stink of it and turn the viewer off.

Heck, ESPN editor Jim Brady admitted there was a public opinion that they had shifted leftward to the point they were turning off readers and viewers. Of course, ESPN (via Brady and Jemele Hill) basically pissed into the wind of that acknowledgement by saying that wasn't true and there was no double standard for liberal vs. conservative opinion and anyone who was afraid of backlash was afraid because they were morally wrong for having a difference of opinion from the blacktivist liberal left, which is dominating the ESPN airwaves and articles.

So, clearly ESPN's ratings have suffered and ESPN acknowledges they have suffered and that is partly because of a "public perception of a leftward shift", but you don't agree with the numbers, the public opinion, or the internal ESPN opinion? Gotcha.

 

[topdecktiger]

Here is a simple article from last year explaining 1 year drops:
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/ESPN-Starting-Have-Real-Ratings-Problems-106477.html

And, yes some of that is people dropping cable, but their competitors saw increased viewership.

Those programs (although people are mainly talking about flagship programs that weren't previously current event opinion, but really stats/highlights/updates, shows like Sportscenter, NFL Primetime, etc.) do drive an audience and right now they are clearly driving them away. That is especially true when the same "talent" pontificating on their opinion shows or on social media are then part of sports broadcasts either directly bringing those same opinions during live sports or have left such a bad impression, they still stink of it and turn the viewer off.

Heck, ESPN editor Jim Brady admitted there was a public opinion that they had shifted leftward to the point they were turning off readers and viewers. Of course, ESPN (via Brady and Jemele Hill) basically pissed into the wind of that acknowledgement by saying that wasn't true and there was no double standard for liberal vs. conservative opinion and anyone who was afraid of backlash was afraid because they were morally wrong for having a difference of opinion from the blacktivist liberal left, which is dominating the ESPN airwaves and articles.

So, clearly ESPN's ratings have suffered and ESPN acknowledges they have suffered and that is partly because of a "public perception of a leftward shift", but you don't agree with the numbers, the public opinion, or the internal ESPN opinion? Gotcha.

Here's the problem with your argument. From the article:

"There will always be an audience for live sports. In fact, most of ESPN’s live sports broadcasts are actually up"

Which is my entire point. Live sports is what will make or break ESPN, nothing else. You keep harping on these studio shows, and I keep telling you, those aren't what pays the bills. Never have, never will. They are irrelevant. Lives sports are what drives people to ESPN, or any other sports channel. The ratings for ESPN's studio shows could literally drop to zero, and it wouldn't matter. That's because, as I keep trying to tell you, live sports are the bread and butter of ESPN. ESPN's business model is built on two things: live sports and subscriptions. Studio shows are a non-factor. Think of it this way. Live sports are the equivalent of a P5 conference, and studio shows are the equivalent of FCS. You can argue till you are blue in the face. Again, live sports and subscribers. That's what makes or breaks ESPN. Studio shows are chump change. They are nothing but filler programming in between live sports (which was my original point all along).

 

[revampedpanthers]

I want more Lumberjacks, Australian Rules Football and other ridiculous programming in the off hours. Every 20 minutes or so have real highlights and less speculation and rumors.

Give me normal uglier people who know sports. I'm not sure why it drives me nuts seeing a shiny stage with people who look like the choice of clothes was THE most important decision they made.

Strip the channel down, keep the big events, more bull riding in off hours and smash up derby.

I don't care about sports rumors, speculation and opinion on feelings of athletes.

Agree way to many talk shows now. Go back to showing sports. They are similar to MTV, they have went away from their original and successful directive

 

[revampedpanthers]

Here's the problem with your argument. From the article:

"There will always be an audience for live sports. In fact, most of ESPN’s live sports broadcasts are actually up"

Which is my entire point. Live sports is what will make or break ESPN, nothing else. You keep harping on these studio shows, and I keep telling you, those aren't what pays the bills. Never have, never will. They are irrelevant. Lives sports are what drives people to ESPN, or any other sports channel. The ratings for ESPN's studio shows could literally drop to zero, and it wouldn't matter. That's because, as I keep trying to tell you, live sports are the bread and butter of ESPN. ESPN's business model is built on two things: live sports and subscriptions. Studio shows are a non-factor. Think of it this way. Live sports are the equivalent of a P5 conference, and studio shows are the equivalent of FCS. You can argue till you are blue in the face. Again, live sports and subscribers. That's what makes or breaks ESPN. Studio shows are chump change. They are nothing but filler programming in between live sports (which was my original point all along).

When I was in college most of my friends and I were die hard sportscenter viewers. Always watched a hour or so. Thats just not the case now. One problem I have is they have to many ex players. Those guys were great players but many aren't great tv personalities. The adding of espn news, espn 2 and espn classic are also a problem as it dilutes the viewers. 2 channels were plenty.

 

[Jpripper88]

Here's the problem with your argument. From the article:

"There will always be an audience for live sports. In fact, most of ESPN’s live sports broadcasts are actually up"

Which is my entire point. Live sports is what will make or break ESPN, nothing else. You keep harping on these studio shows, and I keep telling you, those aren't what pays the bills. Never have, never will. They are irrelevant. Lives sports are what drives people to ESPN, or any other sports channel. The ratings for ESPN's studio shows could literally drop to zero, and it wouldn't matter. That's because, as I keep trying to tell you, live sports are the bread and butter of ESPN. ESPN's business model is built on two things: live sports and subscriptions. Studio shows are a non-factor. Think of it this way. Live sports are the equivalent of a P5 conference, and studio shows are the equivalent of FCS. You can argue till you are blue in the face. Again, live sports and subscribers. That's what makes or breaks ESPN. Studio shows are chump change. They are nothing but filler programming in between live sports (which was my original point all along).

Except that wasn't true this year, so a year later the live sports ratings are also down.

Your problem is you speak in absolutes. No one disagreed live sports is their primary endeavor and revenue producer. You are fighting with yourself. However, there is an audience for those other products and the way ESPN is producing that content is hurting their business and reputation significantly. The decline in viewership and in turn subscribers at all (and some of that is chicken or the egg) is hurting ESPN and it is even so bad, it is hurting Disney/ABC.

 

[topdecktiger]

Except that wasn't true this year, so a year later the live sports ratings are also down.

Your problem is you speak in absolutes. No one disagreed live sports is their primary endeavor and revenue producer. You are fighting with yourself. However, there is an audience for those other products and the way ESPN is producing that content is hurting their business and reputation significantly. The decline in viewership and in turn subscribers at all (and some of that is chicken or the egg) is hurting ESPN and it is even so bad, it is hurting Disney/ABC.

YOU are the one who posted the article. You presented the article, and it said:

There will always be an audience for live sports. In fact, most of ESPN’s live sports broadcasts are actually up

Now, you are claiming your own evidence in inaccurate.

My problem is not speaking in absolutes. My problem is assuming that everyone reading my posts has common sense. A talk show that draws 500k viewers is essentially non-existent, in TV terms. It doesn't make any money for the network. It draws minimal ratings, and generates minimal advertising revenue. You are hellbent on making a big deal that 500k people is an "audience." By the dictionary definition, yes. By the real world of the TV business, no it isn't.

Which goes back to my main point. ESPN doesn't give a damn about these shows. ESPN makes its money off live games and subscribers. The studio shows are just filler for air time when live games aren't on.

ESPN being liberal or whatever isn't hurting their business. For example, an Ohio St fan isn't going to stop watching Ohio St games because he doesn't like ESPN. He isn't going to drop ESPN just because he hates Tony Kornheiser. The truth is, the people dropping ESPN are not sports fans in the first place. That's what's hurting ESPN. It's not being liberal, or biased, or whatever. What's hurting ESPN is they aren't getting their $7 a month from 80-year-old Aunt Ethel anymore, or from 20-somethings just getting their own place.