Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by BigMike, Aug 24, 2008.
Great post, great content. Glad to hear it. It's not, imo, the "multi platform strategy" that is flawed, it's the fact that they fire all the good analysts (or back burner them) and focus on the superdouches. C'mon Dari Gnu Gnokah? The analysts are awful now, it's the sports equivalent of FoxNews, sensationalist journalism which ignores facts and focuses on "stories"...be they invented (usually) or not. I hope they have to go back to reporting about sports they aren't allowed to show live, they were a better network then. Now it's like watching The Weather Channel during a tropical storm or snowstorm that they thought was going to be a Hurricane or Blizzard.
Very good read....really illustrates what we Pats fans have been talking about for a while now......
I don't watch ESPN except if they have exclusive rights to the game I wish to see ... even then ... if it's local I turn off the sound. It's amazing how such a huge company can suck so bad at showing a game ... they don't know how to show a game without all the BS they throw into it.
Every game has a subplot, a hero, a villain, a mastermind, a retread and an up and comer. There are more ... those are just a few. There's always a rumor or two probably designed to get people to go to ESPN.com. It pains me to put their game on ... it really does ... but I'm loyal and that's the only reason I do it.
Couldnt agree more....they do have the unfortunate rights to the game we all love to watch....it is crazy to see all of the "enhancements" they put into the game to make it more marketable for the greater good of ESPN....
But without storylines, how could we, the idiot viewers, be entertained, or understand what we're seeing?
It really is atrocious. ESPN has become one long, drawn out insult to the intelligence of everyone who enjoys athletics. What they don't realize is that the great commentators, and the great events they covered, were great because the game told its own story, and the men in the booth just described it. I don't think anyone enjoys being told what the plot will be while watching an unscripted event.
I don't disagree with you about that, but what does it say about how NFL Network approaches it. How does Sterling Sharpe, Marshall Faulk, and Deion Sanders reflect on our intelligence? Or their perception thereof...
sadly ESPN is like Microsoft(for all those M$ haters ) . So unless there i sports 'linux' which can come out, people are stuck with the mediocrity because they are only 24 hr sports channel.
I just dubbed my 1985 SB20 tape onto DVD and it is fascinating the difference
between the announcers today and then (Merlin Olsen & Dick Enberg) along with
the game presentation. The quality of the analysis and the game presentation
were outstanding (even if we did get our asses kicked from one end of the
field to the other). When is the last time you actually saw the teams swap
out defenses and offenses on the field instead of going to a commercial?
There were plenty of commercials but none that intruded on the game except
for one instance where they came back late from a punt and they missed the
kick. Other than that it was good watching football (except for the losing thing
that is!). They did have a few douches (Pete Axthelm, Ahmad Rashad, Bob
Costas, and Bob Griese) who managed to make the broadcast less appealing
but for the most part they were an insignificant part of the team (except for
You got it - we arent the only ones saying this - CBS, NBC, plus NFL, NBA, MLB are tired of the b.s. emanating from Bristol.
As I was reading about the cross platform argument from ESPN's talking heads, all I could keep thinking is that there has to be some crossover. If I watch MNF, I am probably reading something about the game on ESPN.com or listening to Mike and Mike, or accessing ESPN info via my mobile device. Yet, ESPN just brushes this off saying that it isn't significant. Well, there is no way to measure it, so how can we know exactly how significant it really is?
The problem is the 24 hour format. There just simply isn't enough intelligent things to say to fill a 24/7/365 news format. Therefore, the back content is John Clayton/ Hogie/Schlereth and the various other douche bags on the payroll.
The NFL network is smart to replay previous years games (the 2007 game in Indy was on Friday afternoon) and various cheerleader shows (can always watch swimsuit shoots).
This is a problem throughout media. That's why websites that only post 3-5 articles per day have the best content.
The writer goes on to say that both the NBA and NFL have complained about various presentation issues to ESPN and the NFL is pissed at ESPN for letting Jimmy Kimmel into the MNF booth to talk about gamlbing, etc.
If NFL can settle its 60 cents vs 1 dollar per sub dispute with Comcast, then see yah ESPN. NFLN does a far better job of giving me the content I need and they do it in a better way than ESPN.
I am what Fespn should be looking for - I watch a lot of sports and spend a lot of my disposable income on sports. I used to really like Fespn and today I simply cannot stand the network. Of course I watch them now, but as little as possible. Nice going Espn.
A few quoted from the article caught my eye and I responded to them.
"Rival networks are tweaked by the size, scope and perceived arrogance of the self-described âWorldwide Leader in Sports.â
>> There is also a large contingent of sports fans (remember us) that are really fed up with Fespn's arrogance and it sure as hell ain't percieved..it's real.
"But the report tells a different story. It shows that viewer numbers for most sports drop not only on ESPN, but on ABC as well."
>> And they wonder why?? The product the offer sucks, it is weak,
"âWe have become successful by following an astoundingly simply principle: serve fans,â Skipper said"
>> I feel violated and pissed off by Fespn....certainly not served. Is that what they are looking for??
We could only be so lucky.....
Agreed - lets hope Kraft helps broker a settlement here with Roberts at Comcast. Heck, meet at 85 cents per subscriber and get er done.
Watching any sporting event on ESPN leaves me feeling like I am watching a small time event. Just a 3 hour filler until the next show. "And immediately following the Pro Bowlers Tour, ESPN will televise the AFC Wildcard game. After the game, join host Joe Theisman at the Southeast Regional Cheerleader Jamboree live from Disney World. At 2:00AM, Nascar Tonight will discuss the controversial disk brakes in the 47 car of Dick Trickle."
Now don't get me started on ABC...but here I go. Thirty years of Al Michaels is ten too many for me. Just the same script over and over again. The obligatory ABC sitcom/drama plugs during sporting events gives me douche chills. The lame celebrity interview is an insult to viewers... basically saying...we are not interesting enough so let's have Chris Rock take a crack at it.
All the networks need to reconsider the Expert Panel circle jerk during pregame, halftime, and postgame. Having five guys in a row give their two sentence expert opinions is asinine. It has become a "he who is the loudest is smartest" embarrassment.
And finally, the Oprahfication of the sport itself. Any Jet game this year will involve 3 hours of ..."As the Favre Turns". Any Bengals game will feature "The Life and Times of Ocho Cinco" . What's going on inside a player's head has become more important than what's called in the huddle.
:rofl: That was a great great post. So many good points to single out...
So many truths about where the mass media is headed and how we are all doomed to watch it as there is no way else unless your at the event....
No offense, but you are talking Apples and Oranges here. Unless you, somehow, think that ESPN has been supporting COMCAST's refusal to put NFLN on the base tier and meet the NFLN's demands for payment.
Now, see, for me I would have said MSNBC, and that rabid, spittle-flecked lunatic Olberman. :disagreement:
But the rest of it, yeah. I agree.
Separate names with a comma.