CNN Money: ESPN layoffs to hit on-camera personalities
In the end, it was inevitable. You can only sign so many mega deals to get tv rights for professional leagues and collegiate conferences while annually hemorrhaging money before the piper comes calling. Announced yesterday, ESPN will begin a long round of layoffs that will take place through June that will primarily impact the On Air talent we see on a regular basis. From the sounds of it, any talent that is due for a contract renewal this year is likely gone. On top of that, we are going to see some others who potentially still have many years left on their deals cut as well.
It will be interesting to see who gets cut. The last round of layoffs, while primarily hitting upwards of 300 behind the scenes talent, also saw the ousting of Keith Olbermann and Bill Simmons. This round is expected to be much different, and the network will have a much different look this time next year with the proverbial thinning of the herd.
Whats more interesting is that what could be a blood letting for ESPN could be a desperately needed lifeline thrown the way of Fox Sports. Their viewership numbers have been terrible since the inception of the network a couple years ago, and while the addition of Skip Bayless actually provided a bit of a ratings bump over the last year, it still hasn't been enough. However, with the coming possibility of some popular names being on the market, this could provide an opportunity for the network to get some firm ground under their feet and establish some credibility in the marketplace where they currently have none.
Another potential impact could be in the upcoming 2017 coaching carousels, especially in college basketball. There are some guys currently employed by ESPN, we know one of them intimately well, who aren't too long out of the game and could fall victim to this layoff and end up being right back in the game next season. It'll be interesting to see how these situations bubble up over the coming weeks and months.
Comments
Greenberg for HC...at LOLUVa
You joke, but I could see him ending up in Raleigh after everyone else on NCSU's list refuses to pick up the phone.
If Seth Greenberg is the coach of NCSU next season, Debbie Yow needs to find a new damn job.
They'll end up with Keatts, ruin him, and it will be a damn shame.
Any team that hires Greenberg as HC will be "always a bubble team, never a dancer."
Greenberg is a good coach. Had the Hokies competitive almost every year. Got royally screwed on a few NCAA bids. He could end up at a place like Boston College and turn that program around just like he did for Tech.
Beyond that, considering what the man did for Hokie basketball, it just isn't okay to disrespect him.
He pretty much disrespected the university by being insubordinate. I don't actively trash him but I don't defend him either.
"disrespected the university". That is a big accusation.
Didn't get along with his boss? Maybe.
Had plateaued at Tech? Maybe. I think certainly with the resources available to him.
I do not question his commitment to excellence out of himself or anyone in his program. I do question JW's commitment to excellence in any sport other than football.
Considering JW had Gary Darnell on standby when Frank flirted with UNC, I question his commitment to excellence in football.
They should just license with IMG so that we can get Laze and Burnop audio for VT sports.
They could theoretically use the same model for every power-5 school. I wonder how much that would save.
They'd need to have two separate streams (or maybe three) per game then, to avoid showing favoritism. One for each team, with a possible third for relatively non-biased viewers that might want a "neutral" crew. Not saying it's impossible, but it probably wouldn't help their situation too much.
I actually think this is the future of sports television.
If ESPN wants to survive, they need to pivot, and invest heavily in both Tech and their viewers. It's no longer possible to satisfy all your viewers with one program. Rather than trying to do this, they should provide a complete digital service, where the viewer creates a profile listing favorite teams, leagues, sports, players, analyst, etc. From here, an algorithm would piece together your very own SportsCenter. Viewers can chose their commentating crew for games, etc. And most importantly, data can be sold to advertisers at high cost, making the business sustainable.
They've done this before, no? Multiple TV stations for "team-oriented" mouthpieces?
Generally only for games that are exclusive in their timeslots, like the CFP or early season games in special timeslots.
Yep - what BlueHokie said. For CFP, I think they have the neutral broadcast, a broadcast for each team, a 'sky cam' broadcast and a coaches broadcast (am I missing any?). They are still toying with it (the coach's broadcast was better in theory than execution).
Pretty sure there was a 6th broadcast, maybe a "sights and sounds" broadcast without any announcing crew, as if you were sitting in the stadium yourself? Or am I confusing this with another game?
There were 11. (12 if you want to count Deportes and other international feeds they had going on.)
ESPN - regular telecast
ESPN2 - Homers
ESPNEWS - Coaches
ESPNU - ESPN Voices
SEC - Pawwwwl
ESPN Classic - the "au natural" version
ESPN Goal Line - Command Center
Plus, ESPN3 had four of their own feeds:
-2 hometown radio feeds synched up to the telecast
-Data Central
-continuous SkyCam
Was the ESPN Classic one the one I was thinking of, with just the stadium sounds and no announcer?
Also that's a ton of streams for just one game, I wonder what the viewership stats were on them.
Yes. And of course, it was on the channel that the fewest people get.
From the various numbers I've seen, it looks like the last couple of national championships have gotten in the realm of 26 million viewers across all platforms, with the main broadcast providing 25 million of them.
I agree-
way back when I'd mute the TV and listen to Skip, Don, Pete & Joe call the braves games on national TV broadcasts
Technically this shouldn't be hard, they already run a separate audio channel on most TV shows
Please, please fire Stephen A. Smith...
Seconded.
as much as people hate him he probably drives ratings (kinda like Skip for Fox Sports) so I wouldn't count on him being released
That would imply that Skip gets ratings...anywho...SAS is safe, it's because they pay him a gazillion dollars that they actually have to lay off some of their better talent who is due, and deservedly so, a pay raise. They won't get it because SAS is a walking clickbait headline who demands millions.
Journalism needs to make a comeback...sadly, it doesn't rate, but is badly needed. Not just in sports, but elsewhere around the globe.
Journalism hasn't existed at ESPN in a long time.
ESPN OTL did break (or at least bring to light) the Baylor Sexual Assault case.
ESPN has really never been a primarily journalistic media company. They report news, but they rarely do investigative reporting.
Thirded.
Ron Swanson would be proud.
The gunshot ringtone, LMAO! Don't ever take that to an airport or school.
I wonder if this is why Sarina Morales got a contract extension a couple months ago. She is the worst SportsCenter anchor I've ever had the displeasure of watching, but I'm sure she's not costing ESPN much money
I don't know what you're talking about, she's highly qualified for that position.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Since I don't know how anybody outside of her immediate family could enjoy her, I'm gonna assume sarcasm.
You're not TKPing hard enough
Though, to be fair, I don't think she's that qualified.
Her qualifications aren't necessarily to speak towards your targeted demographic.
It's certainly true that qualifications are in the eye of the beholder.
Personally, I think Jaymee Sire is WAY more qualified.
your icon avatar pic is perfect for these situations like this
Never even heard of that name, probably because I haven't watched SC at all in at least 5 years because it became absolute trash. I saw where they put Jemele Hill and Michael Smith as anchors for the 6pm show, and it doesn't even cover primarily sports...it goes out to music and entertainment too apparently. What a joke.
ESPN = Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. Maybe they are getting back to their roots.
I mean I understand that that's what ESPN stands for....but that's NOT what SportsCenter is (or should be). If they want to make another show about the entertainment side of ESPN, fine. But leave the flagship SPORTS show alone. SC was my favorite show growing up. It kills me to see how they've ruined it....
And to those responding below about Jemele and Michael, agreed that Michael is good, Jemele needs to go. It's the show format more than the anchors that bothers me though.
And real quick...RIP Stuart Scott, you are truly missed. Gone but never forgotten.
The /s in my reply was implied. I rarely watch SC these days for exactly the reasons you point out.
It took Herm Edwards growling "THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE" 5,000 times before I realized I couldn't take it anymore.
I personally don't mind Jemele and Michael Smith. They at least seem to have fun. If I pass ESPN and they're on, I'll watch for a minute. Literally one minute.
Then I go find House Hunters.
Dudes
Jemele is the WORST. I change the channel of any source in the immediate and remote vicinity as soon as I hear her voice. Awful, just awful.
I'm actually a fan of the new SC6 format or whatever they want to call it. Zuban was awful and I'm glad not to have to watch him after pti
Really hope PTI isn't going anywhere. I've grown up watching that with my dad for years now. Kornheiser and Wilbon are a great collaboration, though I'm sure it can't be too much longer before Kornheiser calls it a career.
Dan LeBetard never talks sports any more either. Can't stand his show. It's usually either some inside joke the audience has to have gotten if they've been listening for more than 20 minutes or some other random political hot take. When I listen to ESPN Radio, I'm listening for one thing and one thing only: sports. Call me crazy.
***GONG!!!***
You don't get the show!
Agree, he does do a lot of off-sports topics. However, the zoo segment he does with Ron Magill is absolutely hilarious. He may have a lot of inside jokes, but he is not even close to the grand master of inside jokes, and quite possibly the worst radio show host in sports radio.... Jim Rome.
Adam Silver looks like a fake scientist from a detergent commercial, sternly shaking his head in disapproval at the competition's stain fighting power.
The weekly segment with Magill is possibly the best thing on radio.
They've got too many Sportscenter hosts and not enough Sportscenters. The old way of SC as a place for highlights and scores is dying out since you can get all of that online within seconds so they've switched to a more personality style SC that's more of a news-ish show (like Scott Van Pelt at midnight...very good btw). But you only need a handful of hosts to do those personality type shows. As a result, ESPN could cut probably half their on air people imo. Take the morning SC for example. There is zero reason to have 4 hosts and sometimes Hannah Storm. 2 people can do that show, maybe one. Everyone else is just an expense.
What talent?
Please please PLEASE get rid of Chris Spielman. He is easily the worst college ball announcer not named Brent Musburger.
However, give Trevor Matich a raise. That guy is great.
Chris left ESPN a year ago for FOX.
I concur on Trevor. He's very good.
As long as they don't mess with my fellow Giles County boy, Marty.
On one hand, he's a leftover from the NASCAR coverage that found a place in college football.
On the other hand, he could have a lower price tag.
Marty was BRILLIANT before Bristol, I think he's perfect for CFB. Southern kid with the accent to match, loves VT. Bet that SEC fans would love him.
Hmmmm, guess I'll continue not to watch ESPN.
The mouse is likely going to be more fiscally conservative than the old management. That said, you knew the mega contracts were going to hurt the bottom line. They massively overpaid for the SEC.
B-but it just means m-more...
Bye bye everyone good left at ESPN
That's a pretty short list.
I don't think this is a quite right characterization of what's occurring at ESPN. Costs are definitely rising sharply and revenue growth is disappearing, but "annually hemorrhaging money" is off base. ESPN and Disney's other media networks are Disney's most profitable business segment. This is likely Disney's response to retain these profit margin's as growth has subsided.
My apologies, they're hemorrhaging subscribers, which is making a noticeable impact on their bottom line. So much so that there are sting rumors that Disney is potentially looking to sell ESPN to another bidder or possibly just sever ties altogether. Despite then having a great year at the box office and strong numbers of visitors to their theme parks and merchandise sales skyrocketing due to the new Star Wars push, Disney's stock price fell 5% last year due primarily to the mess and financial drain that ESPN is becoming. That has their investors incredibly worried about the future of ESPN and is leading to an internal push to see if it's time to jettison it before it becomes a financial anchor.
Actually visitors to Disney Parks had fallen slightly.
Disney parks grew in 2017 Q1, after falling slightly in 2016 Q4. But the rise in 2017 Q1 may be solely due to the new Shanghai park.
ESPN went down in both quarters, but still appears to be a cash cow. Disney just wants to keep it that way
But, as Chappy mentioned, over 50% of their gross profit is derived from their media networks, and most of that is from cable networks. Parks do generate more than the studio production movies.
Note: Disney has a weird fiscal year, from October to September.
2017 Q1
2016 Q4
But US parks are down from their highs.
It's a good thing they have parks around the world. Diversification is the way to go.
October-September is not an uncommon fiscal year; it's actually the same fiscal year as the US government.
I doubt Disney jettisons their strongest income producer. Probably just rework it to get it trending back in the right direction.
Actually, ESPN is at the heart of some terrible financial problems, not only for Disney but the entire cable TV industry and sport entertainment industry. If ESPN were not bundled in cable subscriptions, it would be much easier to see the problem. Currently it costs every cable subscriber over $6 per month to have ESPN in their channel lineup, but nearly 75% of these subscribers never watch ESPN at all. If subscribers were allowed to choose their channels ala carte, most subscribers would not choose ESPN. If sports fans had to pay the full cost of ESPN without other subscribers subsidizing us, the monthly cost for ESPN alone would be over $25 per month, and is projected in the next two years to be as high as $35 per month, which is overwhelmingly more expensive than any other cable channel. On top of that, ESPN subscribers are declining,from a peak of over 100 million in 2001, to 88 million today. With the cord cutting phenomenom growing every day, the cable networks have got to do something. Without these hugely expensive broadcasting rights deals, player salaries would be much lower and on-air personality salaries would be far lower too. So ESPN cost cutting is only the tip of the iceberg. Sports fans alone cannot afford to carry the full cost of their sports entertainment without subsidies, and non sports fans have a lot of alternatives these days, so cord-cutting will continue to make the problem grow worse every day.
Do you know how much ESPN makes from cable subscriptions compared to ad revenue from nationwide major events (e.g., MNF CFB playoffs)? I was under the impression that the ad revenue from these events provided the bulk of revenue for ESPN.
Edit: Just looked it up. It's in the 10-K link below. Subscription contracts are 52%. Ad revenue is 36%. It appears, however, that Disney didn't see the cord-cutting affect their revenues or profit in 2015. Maybe in 2016, as they have to renegotiate with cable/satellite companies which are being affected more directly.
Nope - ESPN/ABC brough in about $285 Million in add revenue from NFL games this past year. They make about $19.50/cable subscriber each year. There 88 million cable subscribers in the US. That's about 1.76 BILLION in cable subscribers. Source
So, here's the numbers from the financial statements. Disney generates a net profit of $7.8B in Media Networks in 2015:
52% of the Revenue is from Affiliate Fees (i.e., contracts with cable/satellite, etc.); 36% from Advertising; and 12% from TV/SVOD (video on demand, e.g., Hulu). It's unclear what we can contribute to ESPN, and in reality, unseverable, but ESPN is the most watched Disney-owned channel (2nd most cable channel in 2016).
ESPN has $55B total in contractual obligations ($53.5B due to sport events contracts including CFP, NFL, NBA, Wimbeldon, Masters, etc.) -- Of That, they owe $5.45B in 2016:
Thus, Disney is left with approximately $2B per year. Although ESPN is a major portion of the contractual debt, it is also major portion of their operating income. It would be foolish to sever ESPN. However, I agree that a retooling is necessary.
Although cable network subscriptions are changing, the contracts between ESPN and the sporting events probably will not. NFL, CFP, Wimbeldon etc. need a platform to provide that content, and ESPN will continue to do so. ESPN may (and probably likely) become a direct-to-subscriber system, severing ties with the cable industry, but ESPN itself is an asset that is way too valuable to simply eviscerate.
I might pay $20 a month for all the ESPN and Disney channels combined, including all the minor sports networks. Would people who are parents pay more to have all the Disney they could handle on top of that? No es facil saberlo.
No kids. Will never have kids. Hate kids. If I could get ALL of ESPN for $20 a month, I'd cut the cord and do that and netflix, even if it meant we had to scroll past whatever Disney Channels it came with.
Sling is your friend. The orange package. It might be $25 per month.
youtube tv is going to give sling a run for its money... $35 a month for 6 accounts and these channels. I pray to the internet gods that they make it compatible with XboxOne
https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/02/finally-live-tv-made-for-you.html
I think youtube tv is going to pummel sling. It looks like Google is paying attention to the fact that a big reason for cable subscriptions is live sports, and with all the espns and all the foxes as well as the big four, i think this could be a major straw that gets loaded on the camels back
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. I know sports is the ONLY reason I haven't cut the cord. I'm sure many feel the same. This is a definite game changer.
Hmm..., This is enticing. I've been debating cord-cutting for a couple of years now. It may actually happen now.
I'm pretty sure Alphabet, Inc. will own us all within a few years. Google phone, google apps, google maps, youtube TV, google adsense, and they're capturing all our meta-data.
I think they pretty much already own me. My computer is a Chromebook, my phone is a Nexus 6, my cell phone provider is Project Fi, and my apps are mostly Google's.
The more I use Amazon's products as well as Microsoft's new products the more I see both of those companies surpassing Google's quality, though. And all three have already zoomed past Apple. I find myself regularly disappointed in Google and furious at Apple.
Interesting. I had no idea. I'll have to take a look.
ETA: does it get you the 'provider log in' for watchespn? honestly one of the more valuable parts of my TV subscription is being able to chromecast 78134758920987564387206 games a week across the tvs we have strewn about the house
Yes it does. WatchESPN allows you to select the provider and sling tv is on that list
I did not realize this.
Also, youtube TV would be be an option but it's missing TNT and TBS. I am also surprised that CBS is on there, because they have their own subscription service right now and the shows to command it.
ESPN's profits have steadily been decreasing, and over the next decade or so if current trends continue they could easily drop into the red. With cable subscribers seemingly cutting the cord in record numbers each year, and ESPN's rights fees set in stone for most of that decade, they're looking at a mess where they've lost 10% of their subscribers over the last 3 years and that number looks to keep increasing. If they still have even 2/3 of their current subscriber count in 2027 I'll be surprised, and even then I'm not sure if they'll be above water without some significant cuts in rights payments.
According to the financial statements, their revenues due to affiliate fees (i.e., contracts with cable/satellite/other companies) increased in 2015 from 2014. They haven't released an annual report for 2016. The profits went up slightly. This is for all of the Media Networks, so it is hard to tease out ESPN alone, but I doubt a cord-cutting problem would be directed only to ESPN. The 2016 annual report may be more telling. We'll see.
2015 10-K
While yes, they did experience a 13% growth in affiliate fees year-over-year, the only reason that they experienced a net increase in "subscriber count" was due to the SEC Network debuting in 62 million households, possibly lumped into mid-tier cable packages. While they increased their affiliate fee rates by an average of 8%, I doubt that is sustainable due to the increased awareness of high cost of cable TV and proliferation of other options over the last few years. Not to mention, the more they charge for ESPN, the larger the difference between options including ESPN and those without it.
I believe the 2016 report will be much more telling, since they will have lost significantly more subscribers (550,000 alone in October).
To be clear, direct-to-subscriber accounts is different than affiliate fees. Disney/ESPN does very little direct subscription. They primarily contract with media providers (cable/satellite).
According to the Wall St Journal, only 27% of ESPN subscribers even watch ESPN, ever. Subscribers are forced to buy ESPN with bundled packages of other channels, which is practically the only way ESPN can be sold. If ESPN were a standalone cable offering, ESPN alone, would need to be priced at over $25 per month (est $35 per month soon), just to cover the cable provider's true cost of ESPN, by the people who actually do want to watch ESPN. The way it is bundled now, all subscribers (including those that don't watch) are still paying over $6 per month for ESPN. This is the problem.... This is why people are cord cutting. They are being forced to buy things they don't want. This will catch up with ESPN eventually, and it is inevitable. The continued reduction in subscribers is what finally has forced ESPN to start cutting costs.
That's every channel though. Even when I pay extra for sports packages I get channels I don't want.
ESPN is the #1 watched cable network. 27% seems super-high. What percent of subscribers watch the other channels? Which other cable networks have nationally recognizable events in prime-time?
ESPN has a lot of value.
To be fair, most cable television programming would disappear overnight if consumers were given a choice to opt out of the channels they don't want to pay for. Hundreds of other channels couldn't survive a free market either, despite how cheap they are, because much of that programming has no significant audience. The difference with ESPN is that they are enormously expensive compared to their audience. Even the major news networks don't come close to ESPN costwise. If ESPN were treated as premium channel like it should be, their viewership would drop dramatically, and half the money in sports might disappear, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Yea, ESPN costs a crap ton. $5B/year just in contract obligations is pretty insane. The on-air talent also has to be crazy expensive (but that's an operating expense, which they run at $7B profit).
ESPN, though, should survive post-cable apocalypse. It may be different, but I don't see see every major sporting event moving to a broadcast network. I also don't see collegiate sports moving entirely to their own conference channels.
The affiliate fees are paid on a per-subscriber basis, by the cable service provider to the content provider. I am aware that Disney and ESPN don't have subscriptions direct to the consumer, but they still track the number of people subscribed to cable TV packages that include each channel as a primary metric, since it is both their main revenue stream and a bargaining chip that they can use to sell advertising space (their secondary revenue stream).
My grandparents began buying stock for my siblings and me back when we were wee little ones. I have considered selling my shares a number of times in my adult life — even as recently as 3 months ago — and it was partly fueled by known faults in ESPN's long term model. However, I will continue to hold on to the stock for a while longer because of a number of non-ESPN items; specifically, Disney's ownership of both LucasArts and Marvel Studios (plus Pixar). I understand ESPN's place within the current Disney universe, but I have faith that people far smarter than me will figure out a way to deal with them without negatively impacting their value. Considering that shares of Disney have risen from $97.66 on March 9, 2016 to a current price of $110.84 while ESPN has hemorrhaged customers, I see no reason to change course.
Curious to see how Dr. Keown feels about his Disney shares right now. If I recall my intro finance days correctly he's been holding Disney for a couple of decades now.
So can you vote at board meetings to get all members of the Key Players Club free usernames and passwords for all the ESPN networks? I didn't know you had so much clout.
HEY EVERYONE! Pierson can get us free ESPN because he's a part owner of Disney!
So...yeah when can I get that?
Or that "on air talent" is the new journalist. No need to pay them big money, there will be more ready to fill their seats for a fraction of the cost.
More sports and less people not talking sports would be ok by me.
I would love to help ESPN make these cuts
And the ACC watches as the money train fades into the distance.
Well then I guess it's good we announced that exclusive deal with them last year, huh?
How much bigger would the deal have been when the BIG and SEC got their deals? I'm also waiting to see how the run the online part. Because based on my and many other experiences with basketball this year almost every game was blacked out somewhere and for some reason Blacksburg itself Ahmad many many games blacked out.
I believe the blackouts are because the Raycom ACC Network still exists. I believe the ESPN channel will replace that network so that there will not be anymore blackouts.
We don't know yet so I'll withhold praise.
The deal would have been smaller, not bigger. The ACC had zero leverage when those deals were made.
ESPN is to sports as MTV is to music videos.
^this.
Yes. They are both shedding subscribers. They both strayed from the original content that made them good, and expanded into talk and social issues. They are both now trying to recover from those mistakes. And they both now have huge new competition that limits their future upside.
They are not losing subscribers because of their content mostly. They are losing people who don't care about sports, have found other avenues to watch the few sports they care about or people who have prioritized their spending.
Okay, I wouldn't argue with that too much, though it all boils down to subscribers not willing to pay for the content offered. I watch it. I like a lot of it. But mostly I watch the games, and a little about the pre-game and post-game talk. As I posted above, I worry about the majority of consumers rejecting the value proposition of ESPN as a whole. The consumer will inevitably get his way in the end. And right now, the system is ridiculously rigged in a way that forces consumers to buy ESPN even though most don't watch a single minute of it all year long. That isn't going to continue indefinitely, and cost cutting is inevitable.
I don't watch espn for many of the same reasons I don't watch the olympics any more.
I tune in to see sporting events, and the primetime broadcasters insist that the actual contests are less interesting than the very "special" or "touching" or "important" stories about the athletes (if we are lucky) or increasingly worse, about the broadcasters themselves.
Shut up and broadcast sports, mmkay?
As long as Kornheiser and Wilbon are safe, I'm good.
i have a fun drinking game for pti: take a drink every time that wilbon mentions he is friends with or knows an athlete personally...
just kidding, i'd be dead
you know Seth Greenberg intimately?
What happens in Bristol stays in Bristol
Fox rubbing their hands together like Birdman right now
Fox can afford even less than ESPN. If they get too crazy, they will be making layoffs next.
ESPN's rights contracts are worth a lot more than Fox's right now, and there have already been a number of rights deals that have been renewed for significantly less money (C-USA, International Champions Cup), so if Fox can strategically scoop up a few of ESPN's castoffs as their contracts expire we could see a bit more competition there.
If nothing else, Fox's lower set-in-stone payments allow them a little more flexibility with their staff, both behind the scenes and on camera. With these layoffs flooding the market, and therefore reducing the market value of the talent, I could see Fox picking up at least a few of them.
Honestly while those live sports deals cost a ton of money they provide rights to highlights and live content, pretty much the only surefire things in sports media these days. Imagine trying to watch an ESPN show with no highlights, it would be ghastly, meanwhile, as long as they can show sports live they'll get views and ratings, even if SC dies
Am I the only one who thinks fox sports isn't that bad really like they have champs league and cover a big variety and honestly their hosts aren't annoying or bad or anything
I don't generally watch highlight shows or other sports shows that aren't actual live sports, so I can't speak to that.
However, Fox Sports tends to have the absolute worst commentary in-game in my opinion. Since you mentioned soccer, all I gotta say is Alexi Lalas and Eric Wynalda together is the stuff of nightmares.
Cowherd's show is still great and I listen regularly. I just appreciate a broadcaster who continues to think outside the box, all while appreciating greatness. I'm pretty sure Colin has said more nice things about LeBron on air than even Mrs. James has in her lifetime.
So, it's looking more and more likely that the ACC Network will just be taking over the channel space currently occupied by ESPNU? Because I can't see the mouse justifying three extremely niche ESPN channels that are basically cannibalizing each other. Plus, there won't be the big carriage issues prior to launch.
That has been the rumor ever since the network deal was announced. ESPNU will become the ACC Network in 2019 and you'll start to see everything able to be streamed on WatchESPN.
As you said, it allows them to get the network into the most homes immediately on an already established channel that people know. Makes it cheap and easy for them to implement.
Live footage of Disney beginning the budget cuts at ESPN Headquarters
I wonder if Czarniack is on the block.
The issue I have with the four letter is that they never truly diversified their covered sports. Sure they do extensive coverage of Power 5 college revenue sports and the big 4 professional sports, but their coverages, particularly of the women's world cup, soccer in general, nascar, and other sports have been lacking.
FTFY
THANK YOU.... Totally agree. I feel like the only time I see hockey highlights are when Scott Van Pelt is with Barry Melrose going over the night's games at midnight. I think ESPN is vastly underestimating the popularity of the sport.
Hockey? Oh right, that exhibition sport with no playoff where the games don't really mean anything, right?
-Carolina Hurricanes fan
Shut up
-A sad Devils fan
You're not going to get any sympathies from a fan of a team who has made the playoffs once the last decade with ownership who has been mailing it in ever since that 2006 cup win.
Never allowed to be bad enough to get the really good players in the draft and never allowed to spend enough to get the good players in free agency is a really really bad combination
Related: I want to get down there and catch a game before the seasons over. Tips, advice, suggestions on other places of interest around PNC?
Backyard Bistro before the game. You can park there and walk over to the stadium. Good food, cheaper beer than you'll get in PNC, and the parking isn't quite as bad. Even better, if you're a fan of the team the Canes are playing, you'll likely see a win, because the Canes have decided to mail in the remainder of the season after the decent start.
The Devils *do* visit on March 25 but that might be too close to a planned Denver trip for me to justify. Womp womp. Speaking of, if anyone else has the inside scoop on places to visit in and around Denver, hop on in
^is only kind of derailing a thread about ESPN into a travel advice sub-thread.....sorry guys
no sympathy for any team that already has a cup
-Caps fan
You mean the exhibition season that doesn't matter much till the playoffs with absolutely moronic re-seeding and regardless of the seeding the number one Washington Carpetals will get swept under Joe Hadeed's rug by a 6th seed in the second round and break every Washies fan's heart for the 26th straight year?
Regardless, I think hockey still has the best playoffs period.
Actually the new way they do it is moronic. The old re-seeding made sense. If you were the top seed you would get the "easiest" path to the finals and the match-ups would get better as the playoffs went along. In fact, the reseeding aspect made the regular season somewhat more important because as the top seed you'd get home ice AND have the lowest seed remaining every round.
They abolished it because there was this absurd notion the Southeast division was unworthy of getting any kind of home ice advantage at any point in any season. Nevermind the fact the SE champ went on to at least the conference finals at an impressive clip, with all but Atlanta making the Stanley Cup Finals from 1996-2006, and 2 actually winning the Cup. It was an incredibly underrated division that, while the bad teams tended to be pretty bad, the good teams tended to be great.
I much prefer that over the system we have now. The Metro is far too loaded, and the NHL designed it this way. Teams like Carolina or the Islanders have absolutely no hope of ever making the playoffs for likely the next 5-10 years because the division has 4 of the top teams in the league essentially freezing out anyone else, and the only hope is to legitimately shed all talent and tank for long enough to acquire generational talent. When you have one of those teams that's already on a playoff drought of missing out 9 of the past 10 and this season being the 8th in a row, with fans knowing there isn't much hope for the next 5-10, that's how you actively torpedo a franchise. There's a reason the Canes attendance numbers are around 12k per game this year, and its not because the fans aren't there, they're just losing hope and turning away.
3 of SC top 10 were hockey just other day.
Top 10 isn't the same as game highlights, anyone can make top 10
And anyone can make the not top 10 - ref. Crawford Dunk Fail!
Well yeah they dont have rights to Barclays or Champions League so they avoid covering it. Hence why the MLS gets more talk on average than Barclays
1 minute of women's World Cup, soccer in general, and nascar is 1 min too much IMO.
I've said it before, but the best thing ESPN ever did programming-wise besides SC was Cold Pizza on ESPN2, which eventually morphed into the OG First Take. It was basically an in-depth version of SportsCenter with interviews and analysis on the top headlines, as well as interesting segments with guests. The debate part consisted of four 10-15ish minute "downs" and was very tolerable in those days, with Skip going against Woody Paige and then a series of guest debaters.
When ESPN decided to go all-in on the SEC, then coupled with Skip's daily propaganda on Tim Tebow (I can still hear that terrible, "He's a gamer, and a baller!" song), the show really started going down hill. Then they turn the show into a non-stop 2 hour shouting match between Stephen A. Smith (who hated Tebow) and Skip defending him. That to me was the beginning of the downfall of ESPN's programming. And it hasn't recovered since.
I only watch actual sporting events on ESPN. I've watched/listened to the Dan Patrick show on NBC Sports for the last 6 years for sports commentary.
I come here for sports commentary.
Don't know what his contract looks like but I would love it if Scott Van Pelt moves on. I'm a huge SVP fan and SVP & Russillo was easily my favorite show ESPN has ever had, but I hardly ever get to catch SVP's midnight SC thing now. Russillo & Kanell are a good match, but I would love to see some more SVP at a reasonable hour of the day. His personality is great and he actually talks only about sports. What else could you want in a broadcaster (@FS1)?!
I miss SVP on the radio. Russillo is way too NBA focused. It's fine during football season, because all of the radio shows go all football all the time, but man, I miss the old balance.
I still really like Russillo. He's witty and pretty funny in a dry way. But with that said, I follow the NBA pretty closely so I guess that might be part of the reason I like him so much.
Sidebar. I think we should alternate the Battle at Bristol with Tenn every other year with the Blackdiamond Trophey Game against WVU at Fed Ex.
Why did you post that here?
Sorry...I've actually never made a thread myself and something someone said above triggered the thought in my head (inception perhaps). Also, VT_Fencer I read this post in the same voice Affleck used in Batman v Superman when he said:
Agreed, I would like to see the UT game become a somewhat regular rivalry with the Bristol trophy on the line. The only problem I see is just the logistical nightmare of having an annual game at BMS. Years of planning and work went in to setting it up for that one game. It would be crazy to have to plan for it and execute that setup every year, but if there were a way to do it, I would be in favor of it. Alternating between playing in Knoxville and Blacksburg would probably be the best way to do it though.
This would be an awesome OT thread in its own right! (if there isn't one already)
It's not even OT, it's perfectly on-topic for VT athletics discussion. It just doesn't belong buried in a thread that is completely unrelated.
If you want good sports programming, just watch how NBCSN has broadcasted the Premier League and NHL. Top notch analysis, no bullshit, and LIVE sports taken seriously, without all the laser pucks from the 90s or the constant reaction shots from everyone in the stands during the world series. The network knows why the fans are watching.
Meanwhile, ESPN has butchered college game day, their own signature show, Sportscenter, don't even get me started on their marketing of sports they paid for over the sports they don't pay for. Then you put Beth Mowins in the booth for the ESPNU noon game in the fall. I swear I hear children screaming in her voice.
Fox has good content. But they're trying to be like ESPN instead of doing their own thing. They got the Champions League, the next two world cups, PAC-12 sports, Big East basketball, and UFC. Hard to beat the content. But its only been, what, 2 years? The network is young. Just don't follow ESPN.
Goodbye Heather Dinich!
I like where your head is, but we're not that lucky.
I have not seen anyone mention this gem during the entire thread.
My oh my!
Rumor has it that she's one of the three folks replacing Chris Berman.