|
Vertical Lime posted:For example, take a look at how the Dodgers can pay for all that talent because of their upcoming channel. For the record, the Dodgers are getting a bunch of money from Time-Warner. What Time-Warner is getting is carrying the channel on their cable network without carriage fees because it's on their channel. The onus is on Time-Warner to try and convince other carriers in the wiiiiiiiiiide blackout map to carry the channel at a rate that could somehow make their money back eventually. I figured it would be probably about $7/year per subscriber like ESPN given that so many people live within the team's blackout zone, but I've heard it may actually be $5 a month. Good luck with that. It's probable TWC are going to lose money on the whole thing. But the Dodgers got their guaranteed money so they won't mind.
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
DOOP posted:I remember when ESPN showed Magic tournaments on TV. That needs to be brought back. I think the Staples Center has actually been rented out for the next League of Legends tournament finals. I wouldn't mind seeing ESPN start having analysts rating solo-mid. As a kid I remember Baseball Tonight taking fooorrrevvverrrrr so I was surprised that they're as bad with that sport as they are. In addition to their well-documented blinders for anything beyond the AL East, their live games feature a lot of what people have termed "the AssCam" during big plays instead of more traditional camera angles.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Groucho Marxist posted:I will boycott every product advertised on ESPN if the show League of Legends garbage I'm more of a Dota fan myself, but Valve doesn't need the money to give those rights away. At least it's not Call Of Duty. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
If you can take Outdoor Life Network, add an uncomfortable amount of cagefighting and hockey until you have to rename it "Versus", and then stick a peacock logo on it and make people suddenly accept it as a serious sports channel then FS1 shouldn't be having much of any problem. People associate the NBA with TNT of all channels, so recognition can be easily had. Fox News wasn't what it became overnight, either. Give them a bit to begin really leveraging their licenses with NFL, etc. Though I don't know if they're going to be able to pull baseball fans away from MLB Network, I'm under the impression there's not many of those anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I think younger people who grew up with the internet their whole lives don't realize how big SportsCenter was in the 90's. You had to watch it to find out what was going on in sports. Tons of people woke up to the show every morning before school and work. I just wanted to touch back on this, because I'm old but didn't care about any sports until after the internet: SportsCenter is a 24 hour thing now, and while I guess it beats boredom I only put it on as a fallback to the league specific networks. But I got into hockey eventually, and ESPN's attitude toward hockey (don't have broadcast rights to games, so they bury/don't feature it) certainly gave me that "watch an hour for a 20 second blurb" feeling. My interest in basketball is curiosity at best, and I don't like the NFL at all because concussions, so I just watch the league networks, unless like MLB is doing baseball movies or something. ESPN's marketing has to be the most "desperately trying to look cool" brand since Nike, though. When I do watch, it's usually Baseball Tonight, which somehow has resisted most of the modern day image bullshit that leads ESPN into launching branded mobile carriers and colognes over the past decade. Aside from the HD cameras, it's convincingly still 1994 over there. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Sash! posted:There was an ESPN cologne? Good gravy. No, I just made that up. I do remember their phone that showed up just in time before smart phones showed up and made "content alliances" on featurephones worthless. If I thought about it a little longer, I would have used their failed restaurant chain instead. It's flopped harder than Planet Hollywood now, since at least Planet Hollywood was able to keep going in Vegas and other tourist towns. The only ESPNZone I still know of is the one at Disneyland, where the land is owned by the parent company and the place might be shuttered for a hotel expansion at any time. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
MourningView posted:I mean watch whatever the heck you want but this is some serious congnitive dissonance. Okay, let me clarify: I dislike that the NFL invests so heavily on disputing research that suggests a link between football and poor mental health. When you lose the moral high ground to Vince McMahon of all people, you need to reconsider how you're running your business.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
korrandark posted:
Whether he personally cares or not is irrelevant, the point is he isn't invested in obfuscating the issue with reports that are basically the sports version of global warming doubters and anti vaccination noise. It's done hoping that the media will always assume that the truth is in the middle when presented with conflicting arguments. Which, let's be honest, they're right to be that cynical because the media does make that assumption a lot. But I get tired of seeing it exploited. WWE has given money to concussion research causes, whether you think it's self serving or not, and the NHL at least seems concerned in theory if not in execution (hey, Sid.) NFL's approach seems to be circling the wagons and trying to discredit something they don't want to acknowledge because it would affect revenue. I'm not asking for agreement or arguments on this, I'm just expanding why I wouldn't financially support the NFL even if I didn't find the game to be a lot of standing around. I don't ask FIFA or NCAA fans how they can support their favorite sports because of controversial issues, either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:35
|
|
if you think Vince Mcmahon gives a poo poo about the health(mental or otherwise) of his "independent contractors".
|
MourningView posted:Your first post just said you didn't watch it because of "concussions" with no elaboration. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
The Vegas one closed in about 2013. Someone rented the space, kept all the sports poo poo but just removed any mention of the ESPN brand and tried operating it as "The Sporting House." Today, it's a Shake Shack. We still have many more ridiculous theme restaurants besides that one, though. Ultimately, the problem with ESPNZone in Vegas is that every hotel on the boulevard has a sports-focused bar & grill, and the ESPN name doesn't really do anything on it's own to rise above the others. OTOH, the fact that so many people are looking for One Of Those means they stuck it out until corporate shut the entire chain down. In short, there was demand for it and it seemed to hit its numbers, but corporate dysfunction in ESPN/Disney shut it down anyway. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
I want Stephen A Smith to work for ESPN forever after I saw him get pumped up on some A-Rod story. "You BETTER know that I'm serious because these are MY YANKEES we're talking about here!" As someone who didn't watch baseball in the 2000s, I was only ever informed that two baseball teams exist: Yankees and Red Sox. They're starting to focus on Giants/Dodgers a lot since there's superstars and recent titles involved. But I never want to see a west coast version of the hype that rivalry gets. Pretending the entire loving country gives a poo poo about New York and Boston sums up ESPN's problems in covering sports in such a succinct fashion. May it never change.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
All Disney needs to do is control ESPN's losses until someone like Fox or AT&T (aka Time-Warner/TNT/etc) offers to buy it from them. The big overpriced contracts to show sports on their channels are more lucrative to potential buyers than the sportswriters are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
iospace posted:The problem with OTA broadcasts is this: Old people. This isn't old people. If you don't like sports it just straight up sucks that they're pushing away the regular schedule. I didn't like any sports on TV until I was in my twenties and neither did my parents (my dad still doesn't.) Nothing was annoying like Frasier being pushed back for an A's game or something when growing up. And plenty of people under 40 were pissed about Saturday Night Live being pushed back for the XFL, least of all the SNL cast. Mahoning posted:At some point you'd think Disney would demand that ESPN shift some live sports back to ABC. With the number of ESPN subscribers dwindling by the minute and ABC's paltry ratings, it seems like a no-brainer. At the very least you'd be able to charge more for ads, putting a tiny dent in the huge amounts they're paying to air those games. There's two assets to ESPN: 1) Live sports contracts 2) At least two channels carried by almost all carriers Both are very expensive. Disney spent a goddamn fortune to buy the Family Channel about 15 years ago (they overpaid because Eisner was desperate) but the appeal of the channel was that it was already on systems nationwide as part of the basic package. It isn't living in some "Variety Pak" tier like TOONDisney or whatever. Cord cutting has also reduced the value of this, as well as skinny packages that aren't carrying ESPN, but ironically this is because of carriage fees among which ESPN's is the highest. If Disney sells the sports contracts, they could convert ESPN to non-sports channels though they'd have to accept (probably) a lower carriage fee, because there's no point to a sports channel that doesn't have the rights to sports. On the other hand, they could move the live sports to ABC and sell the cable channels to someone else. The key is somewhere in the middle, and there are other giant media companies making sports work better than ABC/ESPN are. Given how much people seem to love TNT's production of the NBA, that's why I floated that Time Warner (which is now owned by AT&T sans Time Warner Cable) might be interested in, say, buying ESPN's basketball rights and the ESPN2 channel, and blowing up that programming block into a station there. That might not be realistic, but either way, I can't see ESPN continuing in it's current state for too much longer. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Apr 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:Once Monday Night Football ended on ABC I think they took the strategy of being very female-oriented ABC is "something for the whole family" which is why they trial balloon stuff like The Muppets or Designated Survivor, it's just that stuff aimed largley at women like DWTS and Once Upon A Time has had success while the shows aimed at men are often unsuccessful or bad or ended. Boston Legal kept going several years after MNF, and that was a Men Behaving Badly type show. Their sort of pre-packaged Modern Family clones for minorities have had some success, too. But hey, Last Man Standing keeps justifying renewal so I guess we can overlook it's being terrible. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Apr 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Mayweather can KO but is very good at winning on points. I'll admit I had my "oh holy poo poo this is BORING why do people like this" with the Pacquiao fight, but there's a lot of propaganda in Vegas that this guy represents like 20% of the city's economy. It's like finally going to see Elvis and getting the washed-up version. I guess the appeal is that people like the betting split between a sure thing and a huge underdog. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jun 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2021 04:33
|
|