Did they really subsidize us tho? If they don't pay their cable bill to watch lifetime then I don't think we're paying much more for sports content.

I think the leagues just aren't as flush with cash. It is they who are getting the subsidization. Not really those of us who consume sports content.

^ESPN probably accounts for 20x more of your cable bill than Lifetime. If you look at carriage cost compared to total viewers, youll see that ESPN was definitely being subsidized by people who didnt watch it but were forced to pay for it.

Yes, the leagues are flush with cash because of the deals they signed with TV companies. So if you want to look at it that way, leagues are being subsidized by the TV companies who in turn are being subsidized by viewers who were forced to pay for content they didnt consume. Or at least were until the recent trend of cord cutting popped the bubble. Once it becomes time to sign new deals, the leagues probably wont be as flush with cash if current trends continue.

I think the heart of ESPN's problem has more to do with trying to appeal to youth than it does becoming more socailly conscious (SJWing). It's tried to be trendy and build itself into a global brand that transcends sports. Probably at the expense of some older and more rural viewers. But they really ****ed themselves because the viewers theyre going for dont consume sports content in the way ESPN and other major networks profit from. While the ones theyve turned off definitely did.

Ive watched pretty much every NCAA tourney and NBA playoff game and apart from a few trips to bars Ive streamed every single game for free. The boom days at ESPN are over and theyre going to need a major overhaul to remain successful.

The 10 most expensive channels:

(Channel cost per month per cable and satellite subscriber per SNL Kagan.)

1. ESPN $6.61
2. TNT $1.65
3. Disney Channel $1.34
4. NFL Network $1.31
5. Fox News $1.12
6. USA Network $1.00
7. FS1 $0.99
8. TBS $0.85
9. ESPN2 $0.83
10. Nickelodeon $0.73

I'm gonna say sports networks benefit disproportionately from getting paid by non-watchers because they are expensive channels. They also get hurt more by cord cutting for the same reason.

Those ECF ratings a bit deceiving since 1 of the teams isn't from the US but it is true, sports fans are a loud minority. Especially for NHL/MLB which has more interest at the regional level and not national level.

Why a national sports network really just doesn't work that well. And also why they cover the **** out of the NFL, because it is really the only thing you can get the masses to tune in for.

Network TV is more interesting considering they demand carriage fees yet anyone can just buy an antenna for $10 and get all of it for free.

I guess CBS and Fox just generate that much more in ad revenue or something because anyone can cord cut easily to get just network channels.

James Andrew Miller on a pod

SI Media Podcast With Richard Deitsch - James Andrew Miller talks ESPN layoffs

Episode 116 of the Sports Illustrated Media Podcast features writer James Andrew Miller, the best-selling author of books on CAA, ESPN and Saturday Night Live. In this podcast, we discuss the ESPN layoffs in full including: why ESPN laid off nearly 100 talented employees; what this means for the company heading forward; how the sports right deals – including expanding its NFL rights deal in 2011 for $15.2 billion through 2021 and the new NBA deal played into the decision; whether ESPN is still interested in the reporting of the NHL and MLB; whether paying $125 million for a new studio was a terrible investment in hindsight; the loss of key information people such as Andy Katz, Jayson Stark, Ed Werder, Brett McMurphy, Jane McManus and others and what that means for ESPN’s journalism commitment heading forward; the likelihood that The Vertical’s Adrian Wojarnowski is coming to ESPN and how that impacted those NBAers who were laid off by ESPN; anchor Linda Cohn’s comments that part of the layoffs were related to politics turning off viewers; whether politics has anything to do with the financials; the narrative issue for ESPN, pushed by competitors and others, that the network has become too left-leaning; reporting from Jim and Richard that ESPN management won’t negotiate buyouts if you get offered to work elsewhere, and much more.


You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Google Play and Stitcher.

http://rss.art19.com/episodes/7603c7...4a8043ba43.mp3

^ can i get the cliffs?

Can espn buy the ringer, fire Chris Vernon and then sell back. Tyia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

went on ESPN.com this morning to get celtics score. Nowhere to be found on front page. Eventually i just googled celtics score instead lol espn.

I actually sat down this morning to watch Sportscenter because I wanted to see highlights of a few games I missed. This scenario actually happened:

9:14 am - "Let's go to Boston for the Orioles and the Red Sox." They then showed the Adam Jones standing ovation and they talked about that for a minute. They then showed Sale throwing behind Machado, then the female cohost and Jess Mendoza discussed hitting players in the game and if they should ban it or not. Then they went to commercial. They never showed the highlights or the score. They are too obsessed with getting their ****ty opinions out there and hot takes.

Do they know why SportsCenter was a great show? Because guys like Olberman, Patrick, Mayne, Stuart Scott could use their personalities while also showing highlights.

Somehow they got away from what works.

Fair argument, but people can just go online and watch highlights anytime they want. You don't have to wait for Sportscenter to come on to see what happened like 20 years ago.

Right but in SportsCenter's hay day you could watch the regular news of you wanted to just see the scores. The production and entertainment it provided while also delivering highlights and news was appointment tv. I think that could still work with the right anchors.

meh, a good highlight show is still great and it's easy to watch passively. NBA Gametime and whatever the name of the MLBtv's show is are great examples. Highlights from all the game, decent analysis, and sometimes so good personalities.

Do you think we just got lucky with the collection of personalities ESPN had at once? Chris Berman (he was good at one time), Kenny Mayne, Keith Olberman, Dan Patrick, Craig Kilborn, Stuart Scott. That's like a murders row of sports anchors.

I think ESPN's biggest mistake was when they started to hire former players instead of sticking to the plan.

Made it 20 minutes into cousin sal's new pod. Simmons' friends >> Sal's friends.

Sal's the man but that was rough.

me too, hope it gets better

Sal is probably better as 1 of Simmons featured players rather than having his own thing. Ditto for JackO.

These people can't be overexposed.

I haven't watched a single second of ESPN outside live game broadcasts for years. Why would anybody? If you want scores and highlights there are better and less annoying ways of getting them.

Outside of the actual sporting events ESPN is pretty much 99%:

• TMZ Sports style gossip and cult of personality celebrity crap
• Possibly trolling or possibly just stupid '"analysts" discussing inane, petty **** like it's life or death
• Left wing social or political issues being shoehorned in and pushed at every turn

If they didn't have college football held hostage I'd never watch them period. I somehow hope every single person in that **** hole of a network gets fired.

That's the point really. ESPN has struggled filling content once the highlight shows lost relevance.

Always amuses me when people rail against ESPN and throw in the left wing part later. Such a dogwhistle

what does that even mean? is it not a fact they are pushing that now in an effort to appeal to younger people?

It means you guys get upset when you see black people and women on your TV that aren't competing in athletics

"Pushing" "SJW" "liberal" values is not a thing that is scary except to scared white men

That's pretty much the only porn I watch.

More whistle than dogwhistle imo.