ESPN layoffs: Ryan Clark gone and more to come | (Updated: ) Tom Pelissero expected to be out at NFL Network

[203Pat]

To me, this is just economics. ESPN doesn’t have the eyeballs it once did. Too much dilution in the market.

Pelissero surprised me more than Clarke but both will he just fine.

I actually really enjoy the Pivot and think it does pretty well financially. He shows a different side there and I like the conversations they have.

So it isn’t like he’s totally out of work.

I literally don’t remember the last time I watched anything on ESPN other than a live event broadcast.

Drastic change from the 90’s when I started and ended my day with sportscenter.

It really just is economics and somewhat predicting (guessing) the market shifts. It is pretty clear ESPN wants to go all in live sports and supplement that with Sportscenter, which now has basically interchangeable anchors (by design), and a couple of big name brands like Mcafee and Stephen A.

The main reason Mcafee and Stephen A thrive is because they have perfected the "art" of 30 second takes/bits/reactions that ESPN can clip for Tik Tok and social media. Short form content is how the new generation consumes everything to the point where you watch a movie or TV show on Netflix the protagonist will literally recap the plot at a couple different points in the movie because they know the audience is on their phone. This is also why media literacy is at an all time low but that is a story for another day.

 

[XLIX]

What do you mean by almost?

Yeah that ******* does things like throw proms for special needs kids and facilitate adoption for orphaned children. What a piece of ****.

 

[WhatJustHappened]

Was that Clark or Anthony Smith? Moss got in his face too. Love it.

I think Clark was the guy who couldn’t play in Denver allowing Tebow to make the Steelers an unfortunate (for them) answer to a trivia question about Tebow getting a win in the playoffs.

I thought it was Smith.

 

[Sect140]

Yes Smith, but I'm sure he is still bitter about losing every big game to the Pats the Steelers played in while he was there.

Without a doubt he’s butt hurt.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I hate that the Steelers and their players are considered like NFL royalty for some reason. That franchise has been around since the early 1930s. They were hot garbage for like 60 years, hit the jackpot on a couple of drafts and had an awesome team in the 70s. They were then hot garbage again, Drafted a pretty good quarterback 25 years later and we’re a good team for about a decade. Overall, we’re talking almost 100 years. Six Super Bowls sounds impressive. Six championships in 100 years really not that great.

 

[pazrul72]

So u don't like both teams getting a possession in in OT?
I wouldn't want it any other way.
The "defense gets a chance to stop them" is a weak argument.
Many NFL games, including playoff games, were and will continue to be offense dominated.
In those games is it really fair that one team doesn't get to possess the ball?
It was a great rule change.

No I don't like it and here is why, in one of those tennis match offensive games you are talking about where the first team scores a TD on a tired worn out defense, then the 2nd team scores a TD on a tired worn out defense what happens next? Sudden death where the first team kicks a FG to win. Exactly where the rule was previously. You had 4 quarters to outscore your opponent the fact that you didn't is on you and it's time for everyone to go home. My biggest issue is the rule changed to solve a problem that wasn't a problem and didn't do anything meaningful to change the odds. Now I might be inclined to think better of it if the 2nd team is required to go for two on the last TD so the game ends one way or the other. That would be some high drama and a better way to end the game but the way it is now? You changed nothing besides adding extra time for injuries and fatigue.

 

[rkarp1]

I can't believe once the deal between ESPN and NFL net was finalized, that everyone did not know consolidation and eliminating duplication was the next step.
certainly the criteria used to make the decisions are vague, and no one knows the bottom line with any of these decisions other than ESPN and NFL net.

 

[Rob0729]

It really just is economics and somewhat predicting (guessing) the market shifts. It is pretty clear ESPN wants to go all in live sports and supplement that with Sportscenter, which now has basically interchangeable anchors (by design), and a couple of big name brands like Mcafee and Stephen A.

The main reason Mcafee and Stephen A thrive is because they have perfected the "art" of 30 second takes/bits/reactions that ESPN can clip for Tik Tok and social media. Short form content is how the new generation consumes everything to the point where you watch a movie or TV show on Netflix the protagonist will literally recap the plot at a couple different points in the movie because they know the audience is on their phone. This is also why media literacy is at an all time low but that is a story for another day.

MacAfee has tapped into the bro culture that is driving the popularity of a lot of podcasters like Rogan, Kill Tony, Theo Von, Barstool, etc. If the media environment shifts away from it, I think MacAfee and a lot of these guys will be in trouble.

The question is whether the bro-isphere has staying power or just a cultural phenomenon that implodes on itself like say the grunge culture that burned out only after 3-4 years or the hipster movement that has become lukewarm. It will all depend on the generation of young men who are part of this culture grow out of it and whether the next generation of young men buy into it.

 

[rkarp1]

MacAfee has tapped into the bro culture that is driving the popularity of a lot of podcasters like Rogan, Kill Tony, Theo Von, Barstool, etc. If the media environment shifts away from it, I think MacAfee and a lot of these guys will be in trouble.

The question is whether the bro-isphere has staying power or just a cultural phenomenon that implodes on itself like say the grunge culture that burned out only after 3-4 years or the hipster movement that has become lukewarm. It will all depend on the generation of young men who are part of this culture grow out of it and whether the next generation of young men buy into it.

it's an interesting thought
I would assume that ESPN, and now the NFL/NFLnet, have done their due diligence.
I guess the deeper question would be does the bro culture check in on ESPN?
my assumption is, if they do, they do so less and less over time

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

No I don't like it and here is why, in one of those tennis match offensive games you are talking about where the first team scores a TD on a tired worn out defense, then the 2nd team scores a TD on a tired worn out defense what happens next? Sudden death where the first team kicks a FG to win. Exactly where the rule was previously. You had 4 quarters to outscore your opponent the fact that you didn't is on you and it's time for everyone to go home. My biggest issue is the rule changed to solve a problem that wasn't a problem and didn't do anything meaningful to change the odds. Now I might be inclined to think better of it if the 2nd team is required to go for two on the last TD so the game ends one way or the other. That would be some high drama and a better way to end the game but the way it is now? You changed nothing besides adding extra time for injuries and fatigue.

That's one way to look at it.
On the flip side, both teams had the chance to outscore their opponent for 4 quarters, so letting one of those teams have one more possession based on an arbitrary coin flip is as unfair as it gets.
The rule change did solve a problem, the problem was potentially giving one team and one team only one extra offensive possession and ending the game without the other team having a chance, and that problem has been solved.

 

[Bill Lee]

I can't believe once the deal between ESPN and NFL net was finalized, that everyone did not know consolidation and eliminating duplication was the next step.
certainly the criteria used to make the decisions are vague, and no one knows the bottom line with any of these decisions other than ESPN and NFL net.

Relax. Anyone paying attention knew there would be consolidation. Most of us know a summer layoff is an ESPN tradition. It's just interesting to talk about who lost (Clark) and who won (McAfee, SAS).

In turn, these choices are a good hint as to where sports media is going in the future. For many of us, it's not going in a direction we like. That's fine, there's plenty of other content out there, a lot of it not even requiring payment.

Something I found interesting: ESPN+ started in 2018 at $4.99 a month. Its current offerings are $12.99/mo for Select and $29.99/mo for Unlimited. You need Unlimited to get MNF and the rest of the 'linear broadcast' content. Add $10 for NFL+ Premium bundle to get the NFLN content (Sunday Ticket, NFLN-exclusive games). It's a big shift from the days ESPN was a part of basic cable. You simply won't see me spend $29.99 a month just to get MNF. And yes there are ways to "bundle" this, but that involves buying more content I don't care about enough to pay for.

It takes AI to spell out how to get to watch every game, and the rules are different if you aren't in the home market. See below.

This is where we are now, and given the trend lines, it's not gonna get better.

Without an over-the-air antenna, your cheapest legal path to stream every 2026 NFL game requires bypassing expensive cable-replacement bundles (like YouTube TV or Fubo) and instead building a custom à la carte stack of standalone apps, utilizing strategic single-month sign-ups. [1, 2]​

​

In-Market Streaming Stack (Cheapest Path)​

If you are strictly following your local home team, you can piece together the individual network apps directly for the 5-month season:​

• Paramount+ Essential ($8.99/mo): Required for all live CBS Sunday afternoon regional broadcasts.
• Fox One ($19.99/mo): Required for all live FOX Sunday afternoon regional broadcasts.
• Peacock Premium ($10.99/mo): Required for Sunday Night Football broadcasts and Peacock's exclusive Week 17 game.
• Amazon Prime Video ($8.99/mo): Required for the Thursday Night Football package and exclusive Black Friday/Wild Card games.
• ESPN Unlimited ($29.99/mo): Required to stream Monday Night Football broadcasts.
• Netflix ($8.99/mo - Subscribe for December Only): Buy for exactly one month to watch the exclusive Christmas Day games and the Week 1 international broadcast. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

​

Out-of-Market Streaming Stack (Cheapest Path)​

If you live away from your favorite team, you must pay a premium for out-of-market access, but you can use the ESPN/NFL+ bundle to offset the cost of missing Sunday afternoon local channels: [1, 2]​

• NFL Sunday Ticket via YouTube ($480/season standalone): The only legal way to watch every Sunday afternoon out-of-market regional game. It is cheaper standalone across a season than paying a monthly live TV bundle. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• ESPN Unlimited + NFL+ Premium Bundle ($39.99/mo): Essential for out-of-market viewers. NFL+ Premium lets you stream the 7 exclusive games locked to NFL Network, while ESPN Unlimited covers Monday Night Football. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Amazon Prime Video ($8.99/mo): Required for the Thursday Night Football slate. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Peacock Premium ($10.99/mo): Required for Sunday Night Football and Peacock's exclusive streaming-only regular-season matchups. [1, 2, 3]
• Netflix ($8.99/mo - Subscribe for December Only): Activated for a single month to watch the holiday/Christmas broadcast windows. [1, 2]

It goes back to what I wrote above about the sheer complexity needed to watch games these days. IMO, content providers shouldn't be surprised if/when this house of cards falls in on themselves.

Also, I can now put a price on how much my over-the-air antenna saves me: $40/month. That's what it would cost me to get CBS, FOX and NBC via streaming instead of over-the-air for free. Also NFL is forced by law to show all Patriots games in-market so I get those for free when they are on ESPN etc.

If you presume you need to keep those services through the playoffs, it saves me $200 a season to have an OTA antenna just for NFL alone.

 

[1960Pats]

Tebow to Thomas


Great stuff.

Funny how nobody whined how unfair it was that Big Ben didn't get the ball in OT, that crap only started with Kermit Mahomes when Brady punked him and his team in the AFCCG...

That still makes me smile.

 

[1960Pats]

So u don't like both teams getting a possession in in OT?
I wouldn't want it any other way.
The "defense gets a chance to stop them" is a weak argument.
Many NFL games, including playoff games, were and will continue to be offense dominated.
In those games is it really fair that one team doesn't get to possess the ball?
It was a great rule change.

Defense is just as much part of the game as offense. Same goes for special teams. If you lose the toss and the other team marches down the field in 10 plays, or runs the kick back for a TD, it's just tough **** for you and you lose. That's how it should be.

"Defense wins championships" is as true now as it ever has been and I like it that way.

 

[sb1]

So u don't like both teams getting a possession in in OT?
I wouldn't want it any other way.
The "defense gets a chance to stop them" is a weak argument.
Many NFL games, including playoff games, were and will continue to be offense dominated.
In those games is it really fair that one team doesn't get to possess the ball?
It was a great rule change.

OT isn't supposed to be "fair" the point is to end a game quickly because there was no winner in regulation.

The Tebow to Thomas play was exciting. With today's rules that play would be a footnote cause the Steelers would get the ball. And obviously Super Bowl 51 and the 2018 AFCCG would have changed. The modern OT rules is basically the Kermit Mahomes rule. It "wasn't fair" he didn't get the ball in the 2018 AFCCG and the league wanted to push him as the new face of the NFL so they changed the rules to benefit him.

I was ok with the change that made it first possession TD wins OT. But I won't have a problem if the league says screw it and goes back to true sudden death.

 

[TommyD4207]

OT isn't supposed to be "fair" the point is to end a game quickly because there was no winner in regulation.

The Tebow to Thomas play was exciting. With today's rules that play would be a footnote cause the Steelers would get the ball. And obviously Super Bowl 51 and the 2018 AFCCG would have changed. The modern OT rules is basically the Kermit Mahomes rule. It "wasn't fair" he didn't get the ball in the 2018 AFCCG and the league wanted to push him as the new face of the NFL so they changed the rules to benefit him.

I was ok with the change that made it first possession TD wins OT. But I won't have a problem if the league says screw it and goes back to true sudden death.

Hey, the had to change the rule so...Josh Allen could continue to lose in overtime.

At this point I think if you gave him 3 possessions he'd still lose.

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

OT isn't supposed to be "fair" the point is to end a game quickly because there was no winner in regulation.

The Tebow to Thomas play was exciting. With today's rules that play would be a footnote cause the Steelers would get the ball. And obviously Super Bowl 51 and the 2018 AFCCG would have changed. The modern OT rules is basically the Kermit Mahomes rule. It "wasn't fair" he didn't get the ball in the 2018 AFCCG and the league wanted to push him as the new face of the NFL so they changed the rules to benefit him.

I was ok with the change that made it first possession TD wins OT. But I won't have a problem if the league says screw it and goes back to true sudden death.

OT isn't suppose to be fair?
That is exactly why they changed the rule in the first place.
The point isn't to end the game quickly if it breeds controversy and complaints.
The point is to decide a winner as quickly and as fairly as possible.

 

[1960Pats]

I stopped watching BSPN many moons ago (except for Pats games). I really liked Chris Berman's schtick and PTI but those are long gone memories from the past and I don't miss them at all.

 

[TommyD4207]

OT isn't suppose to be fair?
That is exactly why they changed the rule in the first place.
The point isn't to end the game quickly if it breeds controversy and complaints.
The point is to decide a winner as quickly and as fairly as possible.

They changed the rule because fantasy football players had a sad that their boy didn't win.
Let's be real.

Sudden Death is completely fair. Play defense.

 

[sb1]

OT isn't suppose to be fair?
That is exactly why they changed the rule in the first place.
The point isn't to end the game quickly if it breeds controversy and complaints.
The point is to decide a winner as quickly and as fairly as possible.

The coin toss is literally a 50/50 outcome. Doesn't get more fair than that imo.

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

They changed the rule because fantasy football players had a sad that their boy didn't win.
Let's be real.

Sudden Death is completely fair. Play defense.

SD is fair in a slogfest like our game with Denver in the AFCC.
Those games are increasingly rare.
To each their own.