Rarely watch ESPN anymore

[DodgerHawki]

I hardly think ESPN needs business advice...

ESPN needs to rebrand itself & get back to the basics. Networks like the NFL network, MLB, NHL, Big 10 Network etc. are going to break ESPN & more are to come. They need to go back to where they started & downsize & keep it simple.

They need to show sports & sporting events that aren't typically aired. The odd stuff they used to show like midget car open wheel racing (like when Jeff Gordon started), mud bog racing, boxing, demo derbies, snow skiing events, etc. etc.. Use one channel to show that & the 3 sportcenter shows a day. Then, have another channel for ESPN news.

from the likes of us. Yes, for sure, MLB, BTN, NFL Network, etc. have changed the way people consume highlights/get information. I would say that ESPN's current programming reflects that. They have a channel (ESPNews) which does what many here are saying ESPN should do, show highlights. So they do that. ESPN uses the main channel for televising of live programming, trying out some entertainment/personality shows, and doing deeper analysis on the topic or topics of the day. You really think they need to switch programming to midget car open wheel racing and mud bog racing? And drop their showing of live NFL, NBA, college football, college basketball, professional soccer, MLB? They've got to where they are by having their tentacles in every major sporting league in the country (and increasingly the world, with Premier League Soccer).

I find where ESPN lacks is in their focused coverage of the NFL and college football. The NFL pre-game show is filled with buffoons like Berman while NFL Network runs circles around ESPN as far as having analysts who know what they are talking about. Same with College Gameday. Fowler is one of the best in-studio hosts ever, but ESPN's coverage is so focused on SEC, USC, Notre Dame that I haven't watched it for years. With the BTN, there is no need for me to tune in to ESPN for pre-game information, and certainly not for post-game analysis.

ESPN has its weaknesses, but downsizing is not a viable option for its business. They now have carriage for 4 channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNnews) as well as an online platform with ESPN3.com. All of those channels earn premium monthly subscriber fees and associated advertising dollars that go with it. At some point in the future, saturation could occur and they would have to get rid of the ESPNU or ESPNews channels, but not in the near future.

 

[hawkfan340]

Proving again that people love to complain. You are more than entitled to your opinion, and some of it I do not disagree with at all. They definitely put too much emphasis on the Yankees, RedSox, SEC, etc. But they still have plenty of good shows. College football live, SportsNation, NFL Live, College Gameday Scoreboard and Final. The BCS shows they do on Sunday nights after the BCS poll comes out is great to watch (especially when Iowa was in the poll back in 09). ESPNNews still shows highlights almost all day. ESPNU has some decent programming (including Pollack & Palmer that started today and looks pretty good so far). For those of you that have stopped watching ESPN, I'm curious as to what you watch now for your highlights? Maybe you just don't watch anything anymore or try to find it on the Internet. Plus a lot of you are complaining, but what do you want them to do? Just show highlights and no talking, opinion, or debate? That would get pretty boring.

I usually get my highlights over the internet or from a more specialized TV channel (BTN, MLB Network, NFL,...), and also, I admittedly watch a lot less sports programming than I used to.

I think what people want is the old format of SportsCenter (and Baseball Tonight for me). Those shows used to be highlight-centric with some narrative to keep it going. Again, there should be enough highlights that you get a feel for what the story of the game was. You should have an idea why the game was won or lost, not just a few random long balls, TD passes, or breakaway dunks, followed by 10 minutes of some analyst blathering on about the teams/stars from NY or Boston.

Like I said, I haven't seen ESPNews in a long time, but I don't think 30 minutes is enough time to adequately cover the daily highlights, especially when baseball and football overlap.

 

[hawkfan340]

1) you said someone should create a network that showed only scores and highlights. I merely pointed out that someone had already thought of that, and it just happened to be the company you've been railing against. Just because your provider doesn't carry it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

2) their normal segment is 30 minutes, but especially for college and pro football they have 3-4 hour blocks of nonstop in-game updates and highlights.

ESPNews cuts out the analyst, puff story crap (that's good), but still gives you the same quantity of highlights as the current SC (that's bad.) I guess there's an improvement in efficiency over SC, but it still leaves me wanting to know what happened. At least that's the way I remember watching ESPNews back in college.

 

[hawkfan340]

Interesting. I've found that their in-game people are very good, with the possible exception of baseball, but baseball is a different animal with many of the best tv people actually working directly for the teams rather than the networks.

And their college football coverage is second to none.

I agree with this. Even if you don't like their coverage people, they're still better than anybody else out there.

 

[hawkfan340]

I only watch live programming of games.

Here's an interesting article predicting the demise of ESPN:
Why ESPN Has Already Lost the Future : Outkick The Coverage

Great article. Must read. Agree with 90% of it.

 

[MultipleDundieAwardWinner]

I am really surprised by how ignorant some of you guys are to how media evolves.

You really want ESPN to be what it was 10 years ago? Just show highlights? Are you freaking kidding me?

10 years ago, ESPN's main competition was Slugger Dan on the 11pm news or newspaper reporting the next day. Ask me, why this day in age, anyone would sit and wait for highlights to come on ESPN when they can go on their computer and get the same information in 10 seconds? It's that simple! They have to provide content that people cannot get on their own.

A business that locks into an age old business model and refuses to change is a business that will wither and die.

 

[hawkfan340]

I am really surprised by how ignorant some of you guys are to how media evolves.

You really want ESPN to be what it was 10 years ago? Just show highlights? Are you freaking kidding me?

10 years ago, ESPN's main competition was Slugger Dan on the 11pm news or newspaper reporting the next day. Ask me, why this day in age, anyone would sit and wait for highlights to come on ESPN when they can go on their computer and get the same information in 10 seconds? It's that simple! They have to provide content that people cannot get on their own.

A business that locks into an age old business model and refuses to change is a business that will wither and die.

What if the changes lead it into a deadend? Some mutations just don't work evolutionarily speaking.

Most would agree that their live content is unmatched (for now). However, their other content just isn't good enough. The point with the highlight shows is that, for whatever reason, many people find them less enjoyable than they used to and simply don't watch anymore. It's entirely possible this is due to the rise of internet competition, but I think it is at least partially b/c of the the changes they have made to the format, the insertion of gobs of analysts without a clue being the main problem. Take it for what it is, but that's my opinoin.

Also, you should read the Outkick the Coverage article. I'm guessing you'd find it at least thought provoking.

 

[FML]

The heavily promoted ESPY's are a good example of how ESPN tries to put itself and entertainment ahead of the actual sport. The ESPY's also once again recieved record low ratings.
There is no question ESPN needs to continue to evolve to be successful, but that does not mean they are better by evolving. SC use to be can't miss TV for all sports fans....now, as I stated before, I rarley watch it and don't enjoy it half as much as I use to.

 

[MeanDrunkR2D2]

Agreed. The only commentator that I truly cannot stand is Pam Oliver. That's not because she's a woman. Her voice is just kind of "blah".

Pam Oliver is so horrible that she makes the others horrible just by association. I know that their other football cover guys aren't bad and some are pretty good, but yea, she's just horrible. Only she can make a 89 yard TD run sound like a 2 yard gain.

 

[tm3308]

What if the changes lead it into a deadend? Some mutations just don't work evolutionarily speaking.

Most would agree that their live content is unmatched (for now). However, their other content just isn't good enough. The point with the highlight shows is that, for whatever reason, many people find them less enjoyable than they used to and simply don't watch anymore. It's entirely possible this is due to the rise of internet competition, but I think it is at least partially b/c of the the changes they have made to the format, the insertion of gobs of analysts without a clue being the main problem. Take it for what it is, but that's my opinoin.

Also, you should read the Outkick the Coverage article. I'm guessing you'd find it at least thought provoking.

They place far too much emphasis on turning former players into analysts. There are a select few good ones (Herbstreit, Reynolds was always my favorite on BBTN before they fired him), but in other cases they are simply trying too hard (see: Desmond Howard).

Get more former coaches if you want, or "coach's players" (Which are guys like Herby). I wouldn't mind a lot of analysis if the analysts were by and large very good at what they do.

 

[hawkfan340]

Pam Oliver is so horrible that she makes the others horrible just by association. I know that their other football cover guys aren't bad and some are pretty good, but yea, she's just horrible. Only she can make a 89 yard TD run sound like a 2 yard gain.

Are you guys thinking of Pam Ward? I thought Pam Oliver was a sideline reporter.

 

[hawkfan340]

They place far too much emphasis on turning former players into analysts. There are a select few good ones (Herbstreit, Reynolds was always my favorite on BBTN before they fired him), but in other cases they are simply trying too hard (see: Desmond Howard).

Get more former coaches if you want, or "coach's players" (Which are guys like Herby). I wouldn't mind a lot of analysis if the analysts were by and large very good at what they do.

Agree completely about the former players. No thanks.

Agree to a point about the analysts. Analysis would be fine if it were appropriately treated as the sideshow and the actual sporting events as the headliner. Unfortunately, it's the other way around it seems.

 

[tm3308]

Are you guys thinking of Pam Ward? I thought Pam Oliver was a sideline reporter.

Yeah, you're right. Oliver isn't too bad as a sideline reporter. Ward is almost enough to make me just tune in later to see the score, rather than watch the game myself.

 

[hawkfan340]

Yeah, you're right. Oliver isn't too bad as a sideline reporter. Ward is almost enough to make me just tune in later to see the score, rather than watch the game myself.

I believe Ward and an old-guy (Godfrey or something?) did an Iowa-ISU game that had several cringworthy moments.

It was so bad that I legitimately felt sad for them. Like it was bad enough, that they had to know they sucked and probably felt embarrassed about the work they did. I mean even if I think someone sucks, I don't want them to look like a total fail on TV. Kinda bums me out thinking about it.

 

[BryceC]

I like their shows that focus on an individual sport - College football final, Baseball tonight, NFL live, etc. Usually on those shows if they are not showing highlights they are talking about the game and teaching you why a certain player is successful, etc. They aren't putting two guys around a table and having them yell at each other like on SC.

 

[MultipleDundieAwardWinner]

What if the changes lead it into a deadend? Some mutations just don't work evolutionarily speaking.

Most would agree that their live content is unmatched (for now). However, their other content just isn't good enough. The point with the highlight shows is that, for whatever reason, many people find them less enjoyable than they used to and simply don't watch anymore. It's entirely possible this is due to the rise of internet competition, but I think it is at least partially b/c of the the changes they have made to the format, the insertion of gobs of analysts without a clue being the main problem. Take it for what it is, but that's my opinoin.

Also, you should read the Outkick the Coverage article. I'm guessing you'd find it at least thought provoking.

I think they made the changes to the format because of additional competition, but chicken-egg. I never said anything about the content becoming better, and I have no real opinion on the matter. I do have three undisputed facts on the matter that lead me to believe that popular opinion here does not reflect a broad trend:

1. ESPN is an extremely profitable network
2. ESPN has been shifting from highlights to analysis for many years and show no signs of stopping.
3. Because ESPN remains profitable while providing a glut of analysis, the audience for this type of sports programming exists.

 

[hawkfan340]

I think they made the changes to the format because of additional competition, but chicken-egg. I never said anything about the content becoming better, and I have no real opinion on the matter. I do have three undisputed facts on the matter that lead me to believe that popular opinion here does not reflect a broad trend:

1. ESPN is an extremely profitable network
2. ESPN has been shifting from highlights to analysis for many years and show no signs of stopping.
3. Because ESPN remains profitable while providing a glut of analysis, the audience for this type of sports programming exists.

Some of your facts shouldn't lead you to where you are going. Using overall profitability to support your conclusion goes to far since the vast majority of their profits are driven by their live event programming (these are what draw the big subscriber and advertising dollars.)

I agree that their trend in wrap-up show analysis means there must be an audience for that content, and that ESPN believes this audience is more profitable than the highlight favoring audience.

 

[MeanDrunkR2D2]

Are you guys thinking of Pam Ward? I thought Pam Oliver was a sideline reporter.

My bad. That's the one I was thinking of.

 

[Hawkeye11en1]

I think they made the changes to the format because of additional competition, but chicken-egg. I never said anything about the content becoming better, and I have no real opinion on the matter. I do have three undisputed facts on the matter that lead me to believe that popular opinion here does not reflect a broad trend:

1. ESPN is an extremely profitable network
2. ESPN has been shifting from highlights to analysis for many years and show no signs of stopping.
3. Because ESPN remains profitable while providing a glut of analysis, the audience for this type of sports programming exists.

Because they have the average fan watching, and they like the analysis because they generally can't do it themselves. It's most of America, and it makes ESPN money. I get that.

People on this type of message board aren't typically the average fan (or at least I wouldn't think so) and this is where you get the hate for ESPN analysts.

Just my opinion.

 

[ICHawk24]

While Sportscenter has declined, and the PTI/yelling at each other shows aren't attractive to me, ESPN as a whole has positively impacted my life with their additions.

Their televised sports production is the best in the business. They show TONS of college football, baseball, and other mainstream sports. They offer decent highlight/analysis shows such as College Football Live, NFL Live, Baseball Tonight, etc. Is the analysis semi-bland and slanted towards the big names? Yes. But this coverage didn't even exist 10 years ago, so I'm not going to complain too much about a good thing. They stream basically any live production on ESPN3.

Too many people look a gift horse in the mouth.

P.S. They need a college football version of NFL Edge Matchup.