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

[DoubleDeluxe]

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

Are you really going to argue that a coin toss should decide a game?
If that's the case, why not just flip said coin to see who wins.

 

[sb1]

Are you really going to argue that a coin toss should decide a game?
If that's the case, why not just flip said coin to see who wins.

Why would it decide a game? If you win the coin toss and elect to receive, great. If not then play defense. It's not like baseball where there must be a top and bottom of extra innings. That's because the team in the field literally cannot score runs while NFL defenses certainly can score points or put their offense in great position to do so

There's also strategy to the coin toss decision. Bill getting the Pats to kick to Peyton Manning in OT in Foxboro in 2013 forcing him to go against the wind arguably won the game.

 

[TommyD4207]

Are you really going to argue that a coin toss should decide a game?
If that's the case, why not just flip said coin to see who wins.

If the NFL actually cared about player safety, there would be no overtime in the regular season.

The coin toss doesn't determine who wins the game. You still have to score. With the stupid kickoff rules as they are now, make the team score a touchdown, fine, but they pay 11 guys to play defense too. You have 60 minutes to score more than the other guy. I really don't feel bad about it. Why not just have a the clock count up, and the referee just decides when the game's over like in soccer?

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

Why would it decide a game? If you win it, great. If not then play defense. It's not like baseball where there must be a top and bottom of extra innings. The team in the field literally cannot score runs while defenses certainly can or put their offense in great position to do so

There's also strategy to the coin toss decision. Bill getting the Pats to kick to Peyton Manning in OT in Foxboro in 2013 forcing him to go against the wind arguably won the game.

We could argue this all day, won't get us anywhere.
I like that both teams get a possession.
I don't care if the genesis was a Mahomes loss, a Brady loss, or anyone else.

 

[sb1]

The Steelers (+ Falcons and Chiefs in this discussion) literally allowed a TD on their first OT possession. That alone ought to earn a team a L in overtime.

 

[sb1]

We could argue this all day, won't get us anywhere.
I like that both teams get a possession.
I don't care if the genesis was a Mahomes loss, a Brady loss, or anyone else.

It was entirely that Mahomes loss. If it happened to Brady let's not be naive and pretend there would be the same outcry that it "wasn't fair" Brady didn't get the ball.

How come nobody said it wasn't fair that Big Ben didn't get the ball after Tebow's TD pass to Thomas?

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

If the NFL actually cared about player safety, there would be no overtime in the regular season.

The coin toss doesn't determine who wins the game. You still have to score. With the stupid kickoff rules as they are now, make the team score a touchdown, fine, but they pay 11 guys to play defense too. You have 60 minutes to score more than the other guy. I really don't feel bad about it. Why not just have a the clock count up, and the referee just decides when the game's over like in soccer?

No arguments about regular season, no OT in regular season would be fine with me.
In a win or go home game, you obv need can't end in a tie.
So OT is a necessity.
I prefer both teams get a possession, some don't.
Difference of option is all.

 

[sb1]

No arguments about regular season, no OT in regular season would be fine with me.
In a win or go home game, you obv need can't end in a tie.
So OT is a necessity.
I prefer both teams get a possession, some don't.
Difference of option is all.

Before the Mahomes rule went into effect around OT both teams did get a possession unless a team scored a TD. That was a reasonable compromise. If your defense allows a TD in overtime you deserve the L. IMO

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

Before the Mahomes rule went into effect around OT both teams did get a possession unless a team scored a TD. That was a reasonable compromise. If your defense allows a TD in overtime you deserve the L. IMO

Yes, the not allowing a TD rule was reasonable.
I prefer both teams get art least one possession, but again, this is my preference, doesn't make it right or wrong.
I do wonder tho, if ATL won the coin toss and scored a TD would we still think like the one possession no TD rule is fair?

 

[sb1]

Yes, the not allowing a TD rule was reasonable.
I prefer both teams get art least one possession, but again, this is my preference, doesn't make it right or wrong.
I do wonder tho, if ATL won the coin toss and scored a TD would we still think like the one possession no TD rule is fair?

I would. Definitely a colossal letdown after the comeback but the defense did allow a TD in overtime so the right team would have won in that case. Nothing unfair about it.

 

[rkarp1]

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.

I am very relaxed.
the part you are missing that I am asking is in bold.
SAS you mention "won" and Clark you mention "lost"
Yes.
But what about ESPN? how profitable is SAS? how profitable is McAfee?

 

[XLIX]

I am very relaxed.
the part you are missing that I am asking is in bold.
SAS you mention "won" and Clark you mention "lost"
Yes.
But what about ESPN? how profitable is SAS? how profitable is McAfee?

McAfee is easier to quantify than SAS. They license McAfee’s show. If his commercial revenue > the licensing cost, they come out ahead and should continue the relationship.

 

[pazrul72]

Yes, the not allowing a TD rule was reasonable.
I prefer both teams get art least one possession, but again, this is my preference, doesn't make it right or wrong.
I do wonder tho, if ATL won the coin toss and scored a TD would we still think like the one possession no TD rule is fair?

I had a whole counter argument for you responding to my post but you pretty much address it here. That's your preference and it's not going to change. I look at OT as the network is already over schedule and needs to move on, the players have already been in the equivalent of 20 car accidents and don't need 5 more, so the game needs to end as quickly and fairly as possible. Thing about the coin flip is it doesn't decide the winner, it's the fairest way to determine who gets first shot at it, but the data says the coin flip winner only wins the game about 53% of the time. You can't get much fairer then that and it ends some games sooner then one possession each.

I do think the don't give up a TD or the game is over was a fair compromise to offset how good kickers have gotten. Again I do want OT to be fair and get two first downs then kick a long FG is kinda lame. However, if your defense gives up an 80 yard drive then I don't care who it happens to including us, that's fair and you should have played better defense

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

I had a whole counter argument for you responding to my post but you pretty much address it here. That's your preference and it's not going to change. I look at OT as the network is already over schedule and needs to move on, the players have already been in the equivalent of 20 car accidents and don't need 5 more, so the game needs to end as quickly and fairly as possible. Thing about the coin flip is it doesn't decide the winner, it's the fairest way to determine who gets first shot at it, but the data says the coin flip winner only wins the game about 53% of the time. You can't get much fairer then that and it ends some games sooner then one possession each.

I do think the don't give up a TD or the game is over was a fair compromise to offset how good kickers have gotten. Again I do want OT to be fair and get two first downs then kick a long FG is kinda lame. However, if your defense gives up an 80 yard drive then I don't care who it happens to including us, that's fair and you should have played better defense

100% valid points.
However, we have all seen games where both defences couldn't stop a nose bleed. Games with none, or very few punts.
In those cases, and there have been playoff games like that, I don't like that a coin toss can effectively win a game, because neither D can get off the field.
The player safety argument is not valid for me.
Owners care about money and ratings, nothing else.
Enough people (fans/owners/media) complain and thus the rule change. Player safety had nothing to do with it, and never will.
You can make arguments for either side, and I'm not going to get on a pedestal and tell you I'm right, it's just my preference.

 

[rkarp1]

McAfee is easier to quantify than SAS. They license McAfee’s show. If his commercial revenue > the licensing cost, they come out ahead and should continue the relationship.

I get it that Smith is an employee, and McAfee is licensed, with all of the McAfee expenses falling onto McAfee (including his employee's compensation)
but I see McAfee as an avenue to hopefully acquire a targeted segment, one that ESPN currently does not have.
so wouldn't that profit potential still be unrealized?
also to add, Smith at $21m per year, McAfee at a cost of $60m per year
huge gamble by ESPN, no?

 

[Bill Lee]

I am very relaxed.
the part you are missing that I am asking is in bold.
SAS you mention "won" and Clark you mention "lost"
Yes.
But what about ESPN? how profitable is SAS? how profitable is McAfee?

I certainly have my doubts.

Some here said the big win for NFL is that they get 10% of ESPN, but if you look at recent times ESPN is circling the bowl.

Earlier forms of this deal had NFL paying cash to ESPN to take NFLN, doing it as an equity stake is a big win for NFL.

NFL's big goal was to get rid of the cost of running NFLN, they don't care if 10% of ESPN eventually becomes worthless.

The main thing ESPN is gaining is the seven NFLN games, and those are still highly profitable.

Presumably that's a big source of the cash needed to pay SAS and McAfee, so overall, probably a wash at best.

They also got Sunday TIcket but at the same time decided to enshittify it with ads so chances are it'll lose a lot of its popularity.

I don't think a lot of ESPN's odds of making it long term.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

Clark is not a generational analyst and ESPN apparently agreed.

Literally the three GOATS of the 2000s and probably the 2010s. You’d be hard pressed to find many QBs better than those three.

 

[XLIX]

I get it that Smith is an employee, and McAfee is licensed, with all of the McAfee expenses falling onto McAfee (including his employee's compensation)
but I see McAfee as an avenue to hopefully acquire a targeted segment, one that ESPN currently does not have.
so wouldn't that profit potential still be unrealized?
also to add, Smith at $21m per year, McAfee at a cost of $60m per year
huge gamble by ESPN, no?

Well, McAfee is also partially an employee for his work on College Football game day, so that throws another complication into the equation.

Yes, I suppose they would calculate ancillary benefits to McAfee’s show. And yes I agree it is a big gamble.

 

[rkarp1]

I certainly have my doubts.

Some here said the big win for NFL is that they get 10% of ESPN, but if you look at recent times ESPN is circling the bowl.

Earlier forms of this deal had NFL paying cash to ESPN to take NFLN, doing it as an equity stake is a big win for NFL.

NFL's big goal was to get rid of the cost of running NFLN, they don't care if 10% of ESPN eventually becomes worthless.

The main thing ESPN is gaining is the seven NFLN games, and those are still highly profitable.

Presumably that's a big source of the cash needed to pay SAS and McAfee, so overall, probably a wash at best.

They also got Sunday TIcket but at the same time decided to enshittify it with ads so chances are it'll lose a lot of its popularity.

I don't think a lot of ESPN's odds of making it long term.

it will also be interesting once the new broadcast rights are negotiated.
I understand the league has an early opt out starting in 2029.
now that the league owns 10% of espn, does espn get any preferential oportunities?

 

[Bill Lee]

it will also be interesting once the new broadcast rights are negotiated.
I understand the league has an early opt out starting in 2029.
now that the league owns 10% of espn, does espn get any preferential oportunities?

If NFL sells contents to the other platforms, they keep 100% of it.

If they push it towards ESPN and take less to do so, it only makes sense if they think ESPN will be growing a lot in value vs time so that 10% stake grows significantly too.

Personally I think it won't be doing that.

I think ESPN just isn't offering good value for money at a time when many people are being squeezed financially by everyday expenses, so its future looks meh to poor to me.