OT: What is ESPN doing?
So ESPN in my opinion does a pretty good job of covering live events. Gameday is great for both football and basketball and in general they nail day-of-game coverage type stuff. They've always been prone to self promotion (if a game is on ESPN you'll hear all about it. If it's not, you wont. How many minutes did they talk hockey during the playoffs? Or even the NBA playoffs that were on the other channel?) and I get that. The 30 for 30 series was great and I'm glad to see that they're doing more documentaries. They've made the NFL draft a 3 day event that gets great ratings. ESPN has also done a great job IMO of local content. They hired away TomVH from here and in general WolverineNation has been a success. Their city-based programming is great too. I live in Chicago and ESPNChicago.com and the local radio AM 1000 is top-notch sports coverage.
So what the hell are they doing with their national stuff? Are they trolling true sports fans? Someone over there has to know that Skip Bayless and Steven A Smith are terrible analysts/probably terrible people. And they're the front page coverage of the NBA finals. Last night I turned on ESPN as background noise and those two were debating if Lebron was greater than Jordan. Seriously? Between Tebow and Linsanity they can kill a story, make it a zombie, kill it, make a sequel zombie and then double tap just to be safe. Mike and Mike seem more interested in talking about their wives than sports, and are ridiculously quick to overreact. "Durant is great! Durant sucks. Lebron will never win a ring! Lebron wins tonight! Blow up Miami! Oh wait, their 3rd best player was out." And to top it all off they just hired creepster extraordinaire Rovell.
What's their end game here? Are they trolling and weeding out the knowledgable sports fans? (If you're on mgo you're a smart fan). Are some higher-ups so convinced that they're making great decisions and it's an emperor's new clothes situation? Or are they all conviced that they dominate the market so much that no one can touch them, so who gives a damn? I'm to the point where certain national things on ESPN are appointment viewing and I can't stand sportscenter as background noise anymore. Where are you with ESPN? Have any ideas on what the hell they're trying to do here? This link from mgolicious put it well http://holdintherope.blogspot.com/2012/06/espn-skip-bayless-and-where-this-is-all.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HoldinTheRope+%28Holdin%27+The+Rope%29&utm_content=Google+Reader when will their credibility erode completely?
Naw they're not trolling, they're just hyping themselves. They want people to hate Skip and Steven A. because it means that people are talking about ESPN and tuning in to it, to see what they'll say next. Since there's no real competition from a competing 24/7 sports nework (please get good NBC Sports) they don't have to put out actual good content as long as they can just keep getting people to tune in. Which is why they put people on there that fans love to hate.
1. Does it make money?
2. Can it make more money?
3. Let's do more of that then
And that's pretty much answers any question that goes something like "Why would [LARGE COMPANY] ever do that?!?!"
The answer is probably not a conspiracy theory, the answer is that even thought Skip Bayliss is an idiot, lots of people must get sucked into watching him babble like an idiot
I just like seeing how much makeup Skip is wearing on any given day.
Seriously...I don't understand why people are so annoyed by Skip and Stephen A. They're meant to be ridiculous and outlandish. If you want just news, then go watch Sportscenter, which is quite alright. The debates on First Take are probably scripted and loud, but I don't think they're trying to weed out knowledgeable fans. They're putting on a show more than they are providing information. I'm a pretty knowledgeable NFL fan, and I love their Tebow coverage (cause I happen to hate Tebow and think he's the worst QB in the NFL, probably). I keep watching cause it's entertaining.
It's asinine, asiten, asileven and asitwelve!
I'd watch ESPN, not the deuce. Now they're everywhere, including courtside at the NBA finals. I can't avoid that if I want to watch the pregame.
Use it.
defeats the purpose of watching the pregame.
People need to realize it was/is the format of First Take that has caused what people are calling "scripted" sports tv. People like to think they are extremely out to left field, but they really don't say as many insane things as people suggest. They're just about the same as every other analyst you will see on TV, except one thing.
The show is based on debating, so they have to make the debates interesting. For instance, most people wouldn't even debate things like Jordan vs. Lebron. However, it gets people's attention and is interesting. This is what makes them so radical. Take a random topic, like "Did Lebron perform well last night?" If they both sit there and say, well he played pretty well and is a great player, it's not going to be that interesting. They're going to blow up the differences because that's what makes the debates interesting. However, if you listen to what they say, most of the actual input isn't that radical, it's just the general concepts
First Take, particularly First and Ten, hasn't been entertaining since Woody Paige left. Paige was the perfect "rock" to Bayless' "scissors." Without Paige, Bayless has become self-parody. Also, with no Dana Jacobson, I can't think of much reason to watch the show.
...I'm on Mgoblog and I am not a smart fan.
Having cleared that up, avoid E$PN. Everything about sports has become worse since that channel arrived on the scene with their 24/7 coverage. Truth is, we don't need 24/7 coverage of sports because nearly all of what happens is between the hours of 7pm and midnight Eastern Standard Time. Now if they showed music videos the rest of the day (yeah, F you too, MTV!) then we might have a channel worth caring about.
You sir are stepping way over the line calling Mgoblog readers smart. I am a complete idot and I read mgoblog every day. There are many many many idiots on Mgoblog and we complete dumb asses are offended by the lack of representation in your opinion. I don't have an opinion on espn, it is just a network that plays sports when they like Michigan they are good when they don't they are bad.
ESPN has to fill approximately 7-10 hours a day of original programming (depending on the live events going on that day), and you can only show highlights of Rays-Twins for so long. So yeah, they bring in blowhards who will get people at home to pay attention. That's why the only discussion show I watch is PTI, and even that is a chore sometimes. Bayless and Screamin' A are fine for what they do, but they don not appeal to me (or, based on the ratings, a large portion of the viewing public).
ESPN does way more than 7-10 hours of original programming a day. The morning Sportscenter is live from 9a-3p, and then you go into the afternoon block of Outside the Lines, NFL Live, CFB Live, Around the Horn, and PTI. And then you get another live Sportscenter from 6p-7p or 8p depending on what game is coming up. Postgame you get more SC from 11p-1am. So out of a 24 hour day, there's only 8 hours that aren't live. And that's just on ESPN. With ESPN2, and ESPNews, you've got two more networks with 24 hours a day to fill.
NBC or Fox Sports Net needs to step up to rival. I watch NFL network for the draft, Fox for NFL pregame and BTN for most of college game day. Yadda Yadda SomethingSomething Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Used to love the Espin but now I am trailing off and agree with you wholeheartedly.
Pulling for FOX due to there BTN ownership.
The main reason there isn't (and probably won't be) a challenger to ESPN is the fees required to show all the highlights that they do are enormous. Just to start up a nightly Sportscenter type show that shows NFL, NBA, MLB, CFB, CBB, etc highlights would cost billions, and billions. And that would be for just one year. Then, to maximize all of that money that you're spending for highlights, you'd have to do several shows that requires a whole bunch of studios, anchors, analysts, behind the scenes people, etc. Again, millions and millions of dollars worth. Any network that did it would have to be an incredible success right out of the gate to have a chance, and investors just aren't interested in backing something like that.
ESPN is able to do it because they have dual-revenue streams that no one else has -- all of the money from the cable companies to put ESPN on their cable lineups, and then all of the money from advertising. That gives them a margin of error that no one else gets to enjoy.
That goes right along with what I'm saying though. Because they started 30+ years ago, ESPN has a built up infastructure and revenue streams to do what they do. For anyone to jump into the game now, the buy-in costs would be astronomical. The ESPN model is clearly very, very succesful and everyone is aware of it and knows how to duplicate it. But to actually try and duplicate and compete with it would cost any start up way too much.
There's nothing worse than the fantasy football analyst guy. Get off my TV loser.
I agree that Sportscenter is unacceptable as background noise anymore. I seriously put on Ellen over Sportscenter if there's nothing else on. Ellen.
ELLEN DEGENERES IS BETTER THAN SPORTCENTER AND I AM NOT AFRAID TO ADMIT IT.
"Think of how stupid the average person is and then realize half of them are stupider than that!" - George Carlin
ESPN has gone from being a sports news network to being a sports tabloid. They look for the most buzzworthy stories (not the most 'impactful') in order get as much publicity as possible. It's sad really, because its not something they have to do. They already have instant name recognition in the US (and overseas). If they were to properly respect their journalistic roots, they'd be absolutely fantastic to watch. They have tons of great talent - they just need to focus and jettison the douchebags.
Really, the root of the problem is that most Americans are pretty stupid, and actually DO want to hear those asshats argue about idiotic shit. Why else has reality television has done so fucking well? That's nothing more than a bunch of idiots yelling and fighting. ESPN is just programming to its audience.
What's happening with ESPN, is the same thing that's happening with news in general in this country. No one really gives a shit about what's happening locally, or nationally anymore. ABC, CBS, etc have laid off staff from their national news operations, worldwide bureaus have closed, and local papers are folding left and right.
But the tabloid business is booming. Sadly, people care a whole lot more about who Kim Kasdashian is blowing this week than they do about who international dictator X is blowing up. So it really shouldn't be surprising that ESPN's coverage is shifting more towards tabloid "focus on the stars" coverage instead of the insightful coverage that an increasingly shrinking part of the population would like to see.
ESPN is a joke. The problem is that they know they are the big kid on the block so whatever they want to hype or choose not to hype is going to push the numbers a little bit. I am a diehard hockey fan therefore ESPN usually isn't the first place I go to get any type of good analysis or breaking news for hockey. ESPN is so focused on baseball and basketball during the winter months I can't personally stomach it. That is just my preference however and both the NBA and MLB have huge fan bases. As far as their radio, every single one of them is a joke except SVP and Russillo. My advice switch to Patrick or any local channels you like that way you know you are at least going to get something you might be interested in. I have actually switched to boycotting ESPN as much as far as Sportscenter and radio until college football and NFL start. Their coverage on those two sports is actually pretty good, but everything else is a joke. They are repeat offenders for taking a non-story, blowing it up, and then beating it into oblivion just to get ratings. To sum up my rant. ESPN's theory is quantity not quality.
Take deep breaths. We don't want your face to turn purple like Brian Kellys.
Both Smith and Bayless get high ratings, so they stay on. They each appeal to one extreme of the spectrum on every topic it seems, and that gets those fans to watch. Then the fans in the middle watsch, yelling at their TV screens hoping it will somehow get to Smith and Bayless.
All about ratings.
ESPN : Sports Programming :: Tim Tebow : NFL Quarterbacks
Lots of hype, little substance.
The majority of ESPN viewers are not highly knowledgeable sports fans, but many of these viewers want to give off the impression that they are, so instead of watching all the games and forming their own opinions, it's much easier for them to watch a show where "analysts" state their opinions, even if they're wrong.
That way, they can take these opinions they hear and recycle them for use around the watercooler. Sportscenter is the same way:
Guy 1: "Hey, you see the game last night?"
Guy 2: "Yeah, how about that call in the 3rd quarter?"
Guy 2 doesn't need to have actually watched the game, just the highlights on sportscenter that included a few key moments, and now he appears to be a knowledgeable sports fan without actually having to make the effort and watch all the games.
ESPN = TMZ
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I can understand your opinion, but to say Skip and Stephen A are "probably terrible people" is a bit over the top.
And while they both come off as "full of themselves" #shocker
...both seem like good guys who love sports. Sure they play to the camera, but you would too if that's what ESPN expected and if ESPN paid you what they get paid. It's acting. Just because an actor plays a villian doesn't make him a bad person.
Both actually get along with a lot of today's athletes quite well.
While I can't STAND them as TV personalities, they both seem like very good people.
failed hyperbole
I could be wrong and I freely admit to to overthinking this but this is what I think they do: 
This is to find the likelihood of the average sports fan watching ESPN conent, where X is the program and the mean is "Sportscenter". They are mature enough as a network at this point that they have a pretty good handle on what their audience is and what they are willing to consume. I would consider "Baseball Tonight" a deviation or two above the mean, however, and to be fair, they do have some higher-end production even at the national level, but it is eclipsed by the sheer frequency of "average content", if you will.
Most people want high-level overviews and not many statistics, which is why I think you hear far more people engaged in the "LeBron-Jordan" debate than you would in, say, "is ERA an overrated statistic to measure overall pitching success" debate. That being said, I think their local coverage tends to be far better than the national channel simply because of the ability to focus on the teams of note in the community and then have those more detailed discussions.
On the other hand, if you believe, for example, that ESPN's national programming spends far too much time analyzing the Tar Heels and the Blue Devils during the college basketball season, it has much to do with the fact that those teams simply are prominent in the minds of the casual fan, most of whom may not even know what conference they are in. Sadly, the national ratings do not come from the sports nerds.
The debates and discussions that occur on MGoBlog, for example, are not representative of the sports community as a whole, for the most part, and that is one of the great advantages of this place.
I like Baseball Tonight. Steve Berthiume, Jon Kruk, and Karl Ravich are great. I enjoy seeing Larkin on there, too. Nomar and Mark Mulder are kind of meh, but they still provide good insight. Outside of that, I almost never watch ESPN anymore, unless there's a game I want to see. Sportscenter is pretty much all Yankees/Tebow/Tiger/Miami Heat, so I almost never watch that.
podcast a couple of weeks ago and they were talking about the change in philosophy within ESPN. Eisen basically said that the internet changed everything because people could get the scores and stats immediately and didn't have to wait for something to come up on Sportscenter. Also, they added the ticker that cable news made so popular. So for anchors it became less and less about telling the story of what happened in a game and more about being a referee for "analyst" debating issues. I think it is similiar to the rise in popularity of reality TV. The model is take people and make them have conflicting views even if it doesn't make any sense or is completely made up. It is cheap television.
Yeah, amazingly I just heard this yesterday because I have all the podcasts from the last month saved up. Very enlightening discussion
ESPN is to sports news what FNC, CNN, and MSNBC are to actual news. It's not about actual reporting, it's about sensationalism and creating controversy for the sake of ratings.
I've restricted my ESPN viewing to Saturday afternoons in the fall and the occasional late night/early morning Premier League match. Like most things, it's best in moderation.
Go to your window, open it up, and yell "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Seriously, they suck; don't watch them. Seems pretty simple.
I went to get lunch yesterday, they had ESPN on the TV's there. Stephen A and Skip were debating at 3 PM EST / noon my time. And they debated earlier for First Take, and they probably debated later on SportsCenter.
Watching those two argue and Stephen A. yell is funny at first...but do they have to play it all the time on ESPN?
And ESPN is basically all NBA now. I don't watch Sportscenter anymore
Vote with your remote! "Nuff said.
Friday Night Lights is always fantastic. I could listen to Tessitore and Teddy Atlas all day.
I actually agree with some of this post. I am a very casual NBA fan. I was playing some backgammon and decided to turn on ESPN for some background, early finals background noise. After 5 minutes, Stephen and Skip came on and the TV went off. Turned on the game right before it started.