Mr. WEO Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Ah wrong there is always some race, soccer game, cricket, baseball, hockey game even basketball going on somewhere in the world and vid has become a lot cheaper. So a network that is in financial difficulty should spend even more for the rights to broadcast leftover sporting events few people want to see? That sounds like a very clever solution to their problem. Holy cow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 When ESPN started they used to broadcast stuff like Australian Rules Football late at night. That was a blast to watch. They'd be way better if they'd go back to that kind of thing rather than doubling down on Hot Takes! Australian Football, motor sports, cliff diving, anything but talk. C'mon man! I remember when they used to show Equestrian, Rodeo, Yacht Racing and Cheerleader Competition. Heck, they even had those crazy Strongest Man in the World competitions. If it was sports related, they showed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 ESPN, which started out as a fantastic idea, has devolved into a representation of everything that sucks with TV sports. It's now little more than a gossip station designed primarily for self promotion, with some badly over-produced games mixed in. It is by far the worst network for the NFL and awful for baseball compared to any local baseball network I've seen. Ditto for college football. SportsCenter and the rest of the blathering talking head shows have been unwatchable for years (I still miss the SportsReporters, which died with Dick Shaap). I couldn't give a rat's ass if ESPN disappeared forever. In fact, it would probably be a good thing. "Applause" Remember when MTV had music videos? It's kinda the same thing. Maybe it's the corporate structure that demands growth, that ruins these once great media outlets? They have something good going, then try to expand on their audience, and it kills what made them great. ESPN reminds me of MTV back in the day. It was great back when they only did music videos. Once it turned into 24 hour a day reality shows, it sucked. ESPN is the sports version of reality shows. They rarely show live sports, except the NBA, which is the only major sport that I don't watch. Even the talk shows seem to be more about hip-hop than sports. yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I have ESPN for NCAA Football and the NFL games. If it weren't for those two I would have clipped cable as well. Plus my kids still "have to have" all of their Nickelodeon and Cartoon channels at the age they are now. I have Netflix for movies and 5 RedBox locations within a 3 mile radius. Cable could be very expendable in a few years. Me too. ESPN is still the best network when it comes to college football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) So a network that is in financial difficulty should spend even more for the rights to broadcast leftover sporting events few people want to see? That sounds like a very clever solution to their problem. Holy cow... Ok then ESPN will continue its decline.... just saying, ESPN originally provided cheap wide ranging sports programing hiring young less expensive announcers. Now they are going downhill so you tell me the the answer. I no longer watch espn unless at a bar. Again your solution is more of the same drivel Edited June 1, 2016 by North Buffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Ok then ESPN will continue its decline.... just saying, ESPN originally provided cheap wide ranging sports programing hiring young less expensive announcers. Now they are going downhill so you tell me the the answer. I no longer watch espn unless at a bar. Again your solution is more of the same drivel You ask me what the answer to their decline is and then conclude that my solution is "more of the same drivel"? I love it here! Anyway, they are already firing the old, expensive announcers. As for "cheap wide ranging sports programming" go ask Fox1 Sports and NBCSN how that is working out for their market share. Their best bet is to continue to cut cost, increase ad revenue and push for increases in per viewer per month charges to the cable companies, who have to guarantee them at least 80% penetration of their customers' monthly plans. Who knows what will happen, but they are backed by a massive and profitable corporation and have no real competition from any other sports network. Reverting to unpopular and gimmick sports to fill programming hours makes absolutely no sense at all. None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOKIE Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 So a network that is in financial difficulty should spend even more for the rights to broadcast leftover sporting events few people want to see? That sounds like a very clever solution to their problem. Holy cow... You are just trolling again. If ESPN showed "24 hour sports", many, many people would tune in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 You are just trolling again. If ESPN showed "24 hour sports", many, many people would tune in. Trolling? Look if what you are saying is true, Disney would have told ESPN to do just that. How did you come to that conclusion? On what other network is that succeeding? NBCSN has reruns of Equestrian World Cup, World Rugby, UCI BMX Championships, World Volleyball Tour, Monaco Grand Prix, Motorcycle racing, Track and Field--all filling time between their annual big events (Stanley Cup--most games on regular old NBC, French Open) and NASCAR. No one is watching that channel! Fox1 has old golf reruns, D list soccer tournaments, Rodeo, UFC reruns, Drag Racing, Rugby---all the stuff you say YOU want to see. Are you watching that channel? Those networks provide the content you are talking about and they are getting crushed every month by ESPN (and sometimes ESPN2 as well). It's not "trolling" when someone points out ridiculous comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vorpma Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I completely agree with your sentiment. ESPN, which started out as a fantastic idea, has devolved into a representation of everything that sucks with TV sports. It's now little more than a gossip station designed primarily for self promotion, with some badly over-produced games mixed in. It is by far the worst network for the NFL and awful for baseball compared to any local baseball network I've seen. Ditto for college football. SportsCenter and the rest of the blathering talking head shows have been unwatchable for years (I still miss the SportsReporters, which died with Dick Shaap). I couldn't give a rat's ass if ESPN disappeared forever. In fact, it would probably be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-1626/[/url] Personally, if I could get NFL Sunday ticket a la carte I'd probably cut the cord. I might soon anyway. We pretty much just watch sports (80-90% football), FoodNetwork, HGTV, Comedy Central and regular network programming (ABC/NBC/CBS). We have Netflix and Prime and use those sometimes. Cord cutter of 8 years here with $44 fios/mo (internet only). Sunday ticket a la cart is available and continues to improve in terms of qos and pricing, probably 2-3 months of no cable tv pays for it. I've been watching the games with Sunday ticket for over 5 years. PS3, pc video out or AirPlay from an apple device all work fairly well. The Internet is changing tv forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 a representation of everything that sucks with TV sports. I spend way too much on TV I hardly watch TV anymore. TV has ruined the game What's a TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomper Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I would have cut the cord long ago if it wasn't for the ability to get CBC. Must have Hockey Night In Canada, especially now during the playoffs. Simple basic $16 cable package. I wouldn't pay a dime for ESPN. Funny, I was having this conversation last weekend. Live sports is the only thing keeping cable afloat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Last time I watched ESPN was for Top Rank Boxing. That's how long ago that was. It became annoying when every talking head became a two bit comedian with smarmy little quips all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 They paid too much for some big contracts and have too many channels to fill with content. Most of it is garbage, but the CFB I enjoy. It was easier when there was less competition. They deny leaning towards the conferences they are affiliated with, but..... (Full disclosure, I follow Big East hoops closely, but now that they are with Fox Sports they think much less of them in general. I get the changes, but still.) I'll hate them just a little less when Skip Bayless is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp2Warlick Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I would cut the cord in a NY minute...but it keeps the wife busy so I can be online...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Let's get back to my rant. I think the N.F.L. should take control of the actual game back from the Networks and their Sponsors. They could start by shortening up the length of commercial breaks. Before you go crazy hear me out. Instead of all of the 3 minute breaks every 30 seconds, cut it to one minute on change of possession and triple the price. They consumer wins because the commercials become more Super Bowl like and shorter. The Red Zone has a niche because you can "watch" multiple games at once because there is rarely anything going on at the same time even if you have 6 games going. The advertisers win because the consumer is more focused. Simple question: How many of you pause a game so you can then zip through the commercials and wind up finishing roughly when it is over anyway? Or just put a gag order out, record the game and watch sans commercials later? I believe the N.F.L. could strengthen their brand and spread the games out a bit if they would package them better. Attention spans aren't interested in 15 FanDuel commercials per game along with the competing 15 other products and their 15 spots per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 The three reasons I keep DTV in order are: The DVR, hardly watch anything live or with commercials Sports ala ESPN Sunday Ticket I could live without Sunday Ticket, could go with Sling TV for ESPN, but still want the DVR function. Yeah you can stream, but a lot more buttons to click and more restrictions as to what and when you can get shows and programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Let's get back to my rant. I think the N.F.L. should take control of the actual game back from the Networks and their Sponsors. They could start by shortening up the length of commercial breaks. Before you go crazy hear me out. Instead of all of the 3 minute breaks every 30 seconds, cut it to one minute on change of possession and triple the price. They consumer wins because the commercials become more Super Bowl like and shorter. The Red Zone has a niche because you can "watch" multiple games at once because there is rarely anything going on at the same time even if you have 6 games going. The advertisers win because the consumer is more focused. Simple question: How many of you pause a game so you can then zip through the commercials and wind up finishing roughly when it is over anyway? Or just put a gag order out, record the game and watch sans commercials later? I believe the N.F.L. could strengthen their brand and spread the games out a bit if they would package them better. Attention spans aren't interested in 15 FanDuel commercials per game along with the competing 15 other products and their 15 spots per. These networks and sponsors pay the NFL billions of dollars. They are not giving up control of anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohiostyle Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 IMO it's needs to go ala carte, like HBO has, and many others will soon follow. The fact that the avg cable subscriber pays something like $7 month for it, when only a small percentage would do so knowingly, is pretty damning. I however would absolutely pay $10 ala carte like Netflix because of the enormous amount of college football, SC (which is devolving as we know it, so more like ESPNEWS). I cut the cable many years ago, but without their app (and a few family members logins), I probably would have gone back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 I remember when they used to show Equestrian, Rodeo, Yacht Racing and Cheerleader Competition. Heck, they even had those crazy Strongest Man in the World competitions. If it was sports related, they showed it. Its tricky though, because i think late night tv is dominated by on demand and netflix now. Why would i watch yacht racing (assuming im not into yachting), when I could watch like anything else. Re-airing in house shows they already filmed is probably cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts