What annoys me most about ESPN is how many of their reports and stories revolve around their own employees.
What annoys me most about ESPN is how many of their reports and stories revolve around their own employees.Exactly, I would wager most people don't unless there is a compelling reason to watch. And this is why the Steven A. Smiths of the world exist. Other than tennis and the Cubs (or another MLB game), what other sport is on in the middle of a weekday? So you've got to have a chief pot-stirrer who you can count on saying something absolutely stupid once in a while to draw people in to see what the dumb-*** will say next.
In other words, you have no use for ESPN......that is, until such time as you, well, have a use for what they're programming.
The point I'm trying to make; I don't understand why you (or anyone else) makes what appears to be a dismissive post about a cable channel for which you absolutely have a purpose to view. And the WWL knows live sports remains the most compelling aspect of what they provide their viewers.
For that reason, they'll keep upping their bids.....to the extent it's financially possible.....to provide their viewers exclusive live programming, as its the only programming which has never (and probably never will) gain traction with time shifters.
For the record, I myself don't use ESPN for much beyond live game action anymore, either; if my life depended on it, I couldn't tell you the last time I watched Sportscenter. And that's because I don't need it; like everyone else, I get every score I desire.....as well as stats and virtually every recorded highlight......online and on demand.
Said another way, I'm not sure who really needs Sportscenter (or much else on the WWL) anymore.....
How? All but one game each week airs on other networks.I do think ESPN is partially responsible for the declining NFL ratings.
How? All but one game each week airs on other networks.
How? All but one game each week airs on other networks.
Oversaturation and making sports about something other than an escape from reality for a few hours.
... they'll keep upping their bids.....to the extent it's financially possible.....to provide their viewers exclusive live programming, as its the only programming which has never (and probably never will) gain traction with time shifters.
....
Oversaturation and making sports about something other than an escape from reality for a few hours.
OK, but those responses don't answer my original question. Thanks, anyway.Making the league unlikeable, unenjoyable.
ESPN has turned the NFL into a WWE drama....it's just not fun anymore.
They've done the opposite with NBA. They sell the best players, focus on basketball talk....and the NBA is at great spot.
Maybe NBA leadership is just doing a btter job....Monday Night Football is down 1/4 in ratings.
OK, but those responses don't answer my original question. Thanks, anyway.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't at all answer my question about how a network that only broadcasts one game per week could be responsible for declining ratings on the other 15 games per week they don't broadcast.You asked how ESPN is partially responsible for declining ratings, I responded oversaturation and making it too much about something other than football. Agree or disagree but I very clearly answered your question.
No FS1 for you either eh Darth? I pay 99 bucks a year for what is supposed to be the full college meal deal...football and basketball, yet...I don't get anything from FS1 as there is no agreement here to broadcast that network (which was discovered after several angry phone calls) and unfortunately they do an awful lot of B12. I was happy to see WVU on the mothership last week and ironically on ESPN networks over the last month or so...is FS1 typically an add on outside of a regular sports pack? I honestly don't know....you are Western NY area correct?Part of the problem is that ESPN is no longer looked at as likable. It wasn't always like that. ESPN was fun, funny, and delivered good content. As a kid, at home from school or in the summer I'd re-watch Sportscenter 3x a day sometimes, because what else was on? Their hosts were likable, and for me, even as a kid, I just enjoyed being able to get all my highlights in one space.
It serves a purpose - live sports. But that purpose isn't all that important. I miss WVU games frequently because I don't get FS1 at home, but I can go to a sports bar, and in some cases, I just don't watch the games, and believe it or not - my life goes on.
If the purpose they serves was actually important, they wouldn't need to subsidize their product on the backs of people who have no interest in sports, or just a very casual interest, but that's exactly how they built their empire.
OK, but those responses don't answer my original question. Thanks, anyway.
You do know that if no one pays for cable that then cable won't be writing out $30 million checks annually to WVU? So don't be too gleeful. There's no free lunch, fellows. WVU's money has to have a starting point, just like mountain streams.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't at all answer my question about how a network that only broadcasts one game per week could be responsible for declining ratings on the other 15 games per week they don't broadcast.
Yes they did.
Not directly but you make some good points. IMO the biggest downfall is all of the crappy QB play. There have been just bad games on primetime slots. Haven't seen ratings for this week, but imagine that they did very well with Falcons-Packers and Eagles-Cowboys, since they were very good games.
From what I've read, people were tuning in, then tuning out of games. Lastly, I think the NFL cashed in on the fantasy football bubble that has now reached it's peak. They banked that people would watch uninteresting games 3-4 times per week since they had fantasy players in the game not thinking that the non football fans are content with checking the updates on their phones as opposed to tuning in. I know a ton of people who our fantasy football freaks who don't even watch a game or even like football.
NBA is doing it right, whatever they are doing. It's growing and has become a watchable product again.
Good points here. I cant watch the uninteresting Thursday and usually Monday games. The Sunday night game is always a good matchup but me and the fiance are going to opt for our Sunday shows over football given I watched football all afternoon. The phone updates are what will kill the fantasy football driven uptick on Titans-Jags games. The game moves too slow to watch a game where you have only fantasy football interest (i.e. too much time in between plays, and when your guy isnt on offense who cares what happens). However basketball embraced fantasy sports early, and while it is nowhere near the popularity of NFL fantasy, it is growing because the games are fluid and there is constant action. I do an occassional NBA draftkings or fanduel and it really is entertaining to watch.
And .... concerning professional sports ..... more and more people are simply not interested in watching millionaires, who are only millionaires because they can play a game, actually play a game.
I dont care how much they make, and most of them, especially in the NFL, are not millionaires. In most cases the player doesnt make enough in their playing career to not have to go immediately into the work force when the ride ends. I watch for entertainment, I like some players/teams more than others, the guys who earn the big bucks typically earned it with their play and it doesnt bother me.
Maybe the market is demonstrating that sports have been overvalued
Oh i'd certainly agree re: the college sports...Toronto seems rather similar to Atlanta in that case with the English speaking...you could literally spend your entire life in some neighborhood's here and never have the need to know English. I am actually about an hour and half north of town in lake country, but work in the city every day....Pro sport is king here, although i myself enjoy the 'amateur' sport much more... Atlanta has always seemed a bit of a fickle market to me, win or else (which I don't necessarily disagree or agree with), perhaps I am wrong ...you would know better than I there.