ESPN layoffs commence today

[salrx95]

It probably has been covered at some point but ESPN firing all their best hockey guys in the middle of the Cup playoffs tells you all you need to know about what they think/feel about hockey. (not that I thought they cared anyways before yesterday. It just reinforces it)

[pathetic]

Originally Posted by rickyh24

I'd say he's in the big three.

idk.. maybe? no order

Bomani Jones
israel gutierrez
Jamele Hill
Dan Lebatard
Kevin Blakinstone

[lockman21]

Originally Posted by salrx95

It probably has been covered at some point but ESPN firing all their best hockey guys in the middle of the Cup playoffs tells you all you need to know about what they think/feel about hockey. (not that I thought they cared anyways before yesterday. It just reinforces it)

They're incredibly transparent about it. In the 90s, when they had hockey games on their network, there were a lot more hockey highlights on SportsCenter.

Once they lost that bid, highlights and coverage dropped. It's the same thing with the NFL and NBA. ESPN disproportionately pumps coverage to the sports they broadcast and they aren't exactly coy about it.

[jmkratt]

Originally Posted by pathetic

idk.. maybe? no order

Bomani Jones
israel gutierrez
Jamele Hill
Dan Lebatard
Kevin Blakinstone

She is awful.

[YouNeverKnow25]

Originally Posted by lockman21

They're incredibly transparent about it. In the 90s, when they had hockey games on their network, there were a lot more hockey highlights on SportsCenter.

Once they lost that bid, highlights and coverage dropped. It's the same thing with the NFL and NBA. ESPN disproportionately pumps coverage to the sports they broadcast and they aren't exactly coy about it.

why would they be? what duty does ESPN have to promote sports that it doesn't profit from?

[TheLastPig]

Brit McHenry also gone. Doing her last assignment today for the draft then thats it.

[salrx95]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

why would they be? what duty does ESPN have to promote sports that it doesn't profit from?

because they are the self proclaimed "Worldwide leader in sports" and not the "worldwide leader in sports that it directly profits from and airing rights for".

[YouNeverKnow25]

the marketing tagline means they should market things they don't have a market for

[mrignatious]

Originally Posted by salrx95

because they are the self proclaimed "Worldwide leader in sports" and not the "worldwide leader in sports that it directly profits from and airing rights for".

[TheLastPig]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

the marketing tagline means they should market things they don't have a market for

Theres clearly a hockey market or they wouldnt hire any hockey guys at all.

Always thought it was more of an FU to the league since they lost the rights to broadcast games.


I get that its all bottom line in the end but the tagline definitely implies they should give at least a chunk of attention to all sports.

[thebridge15]

Originally Posted by salrx95

because they are the self proclaimed "Worldwide leader in sports" and not the "worldwide leader in sports that it directly profits from and airing rights for".

espn doesn't choose what sports people want to watch. it's the other way around

[YouNeverKnow25]

FU to the league? You think the NHL chose not to be on espn??

[TheLastPig]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

FU to the league? You think the NHL chose not to be on espn??

No, ESPN decided it wasnt worth the money to renew their contract.

They didnt ever like the hockey numbers they got so they said fuck it and barely covered it since instead of trying to find a new way to get viewers for their hockey coverage of any sort.



I when I see highlights they do even know with Melrose or Bucci. They take an up and down exciting say 5-4 game and jump into the highlight at 4-4 and show one maybe two goals. Often times its not even the most exciting goals of the game.

[MOWJO8185]

Here's the top navigation ribbon of both nbcsports.com and foxsports.com. Seems they all put the sports they broadcast first in the pecking order. But it's good when the NBC Sports does it because that's pro-hockey, right?

[lockman21]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

why would they be? what duty does ESPN have to promote sports that it doesn't profit from?

And this is the argument that goes round-and-round. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. But there's a line between journalistic integrity as the "worldwide leader in sports" and a for-profit business.

ESPN can run their company however they chose. Some people might say that's the issue with news networks focusing on quarterly earnings though, and what put ESPN in this situation in the first place. It's short-sighted and fragments your customer base.

[TheLastPig]

Originally Posted by MOWJO8185

Here's the top navigation ribbon of both nbcsports.com and foxsports.com. Seems they all put the sports they broadcast first in the pecking order. But it's good when the NBC Sports does it because that's pro-hockey, right?

Not sure what youre saying here? I dont know what the order NBC lists sports on their website has to do with this convo.

Those places dont claim to be the "worldwide leader in sports"

Originally Posted by lockman21

And this is the argument that goes round-and-round. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. But there's a line between journalistic integrity as the "worldwide leader in sports" and a for-profit business.

ESPN can run their company however they chose. Some people might say that's the issue with news networks focusing on quarterly earnings though, and what put ESPN in this situation in the first place. It's short-sighted and fragments your customer base.

[kydmb99]

I'm surprised one of these fringe sports hasn't tried the "direct to consumer" route yet. I think that's the future for all major sports and when ESPN will pretty much collapse

[dontdrink36]

Hockey doesn't have the national audience like the NFL and NBA. It has a small, though die-hard base, mostly in the Northeast. That's why there is no major coverage on ESPN. They didn't show much soccer until recently when there was an uptick in US interest and they bought the broadcast rights to more soccer games.

The NHL is actually a lot like DMB in a sense. They have a dedicated base of fans who are very into the product but don't garner the same level of national attention as other leagues/acts.

[mrignatious]

Journalistic integrity

[dontdrink36]

Originally Posted by TheLastPig

Not sure what youre saying here? I dont know what the order NBC lists sports on their website has to do with this convo.

Those places dont claim to be the "worldwide leader in sports"

You're too hung up on the tagline. Fox News is/was "Fair and Balanced" when in reality it is anything but.

[TheLastPig]

Originally Posted by dontdrink36

Hockey doesn't have the national audience like the NFL and NBA. It has a small, though die-hard base, mostly in the Northeast. That's why there is no major coverage on ESPN. They didn't show much soccer until recently when there was an uptick in US interest and they bought the broadcast rights to more soccer games.

The NHL is actually a lot like DMB in a sense. They have a dedicated base of fans who are very into the product but don't garner the same level of national attention as other leagues/acts.

Everyone is well aware of that. But a company that claims to be the worldwide leader in sports... youd think they would, ya know, cover the sport.

Its not like hockey is curling or something. The league has 30 teams across the country.

[kydmb99]

Not sure why anyone would expect a company with a pretty dire financial outlook to spend money and resources on a sport the vast majority of America doesn't care about

[MOWJO8185]

Originally Posted by TheLastPig

Not sure what youre saying here? I dont know what the order NBC lists sports on their website has to do with this convo.

Those places dont claim to be the "worldwide leader in sports"

What? It's relevant because it's the order of the sports NBC is prioritizing. I don't watch the NBC Sports news shows but I would imagine their emphasis is similar.

And I don't think I agree that not having hockey coverage makes the line "worldwide leader in sports" inaccurate. They still have more sports than others, right? Enough to make them the leader?

[TheLastPig]

Originally Posted by dontdrink36

You're too hung up on the tagline. Fox News is/was "Fair and Balanced" when in reality it is anything but.

Yeah I guess but Fox gets hammered for that all the time.


Its about the bottom dollar. I know. Just always seemed odd to be such a huge conglomerate and put such a small amount of coverage on one of 4 major sports in the country.

Im not just talking about highlight time on sportscenter either, the lack of coverage was across their whole network.

[dontdrink36]

Originally Posted by TheLastPig

Everyone is well aware of that. But a company that claims to be the worldwide leader in sports... youd think they would, ya know, cover the sport.

Its not like hockey is curling or something. The league has 30 teams across the country.

That nationwide doesn't move the needle like the NFL or NBA. The MLS has 22 teams across the country but ESPN doesn't cover them all that much because the nation by in large doesn't care nearly as much as they do about the other major sports.

[dontdrink36]

Originally Posted by TheLastPig

Yeah I guess but Fox gets hammered for that all the time.


Its about the bottom dollar. I know. Just always seemed odd to be such a huge conglomerate and put such a small amount of coverage on one of 4 major sports in the country.

Im not just talking about highlight time on sportscenter either, the lack of coverage was across their whole network.

It's fair to bash them for the tagline but not to hold them to it. It's a business that covers what they think people want to see. What they cover isn't EsPN's issue, it's how it's covered.

[TheLastPig]

I really dont care all that much about it. Lockman said it best, its a topic you can go round and round with.

[thebridge15]

Originally Posted by mrignatious

Journalistic integrity

[aeroshady]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

Not sure why anyone would expect a company with a pretty dire financial outlook to spend money and resources on a sport the vast majority of America doesn't care about

Hockey has not really been giving a fair chance for over 2 decades though. A lot of that is their own fault with all the lockouts and work stoppages, but the numbers for the playoffs and Winter classic showed that it has potential. Also, a city like Nashville shows that hockey can grow anywhere. I don't agree that the vast majority doesn't care about it. I just think they only care at certain times.

Originally Posted by dontdrink36

That nationwide doesn't move the needle like the NFL or NBA. The MLS has 22 teams across the country but ESPN doesn't cover them all that much because the nation by in large doesn't care nearly as much as they do about the other major sports.

I think I know what you meant here, but it came out inaccurate. The issue is that the US soccer fan base fell in love with European Football teams like Manchester United and Barca. That has helped the MLS grow in the long run, but the TV focus is obviously on the European teams and not the MLS for that reason.

[lockman21]

Originally Posted by dontdrink36

Hockey doesn't have the national audience like the NFL and NBA. It has a small, though die-hard base, mostly in the Northeast. That's why there is no major coverage on ESPN. They didn't show much soccer until recently when there was an uptick in US interest and they bought the broadcast rights to more soccer games.

The NHL is actually a lot like DMB in a sense. They have a dedicated base of fans who are very into the product but don't garner the same level of national attention as other leagues/acts.

Agreed. And we're going to talk in circles, because it becomes a chicken or egg thing.

But this is far from the NHL v. ESPN, or soccer, or freakin' ping pong. I think their issues go far beyond that. I think people can talk about the quality of content on ESPN being their downfall all they want, but I think their short-sightedness is really what's doing them in. And look, they're not the first and certainly won't be the last major corporation to react too slowly to a quickly evolving market.

They made deals based on current formulas in a landscape that clearly was changing. Their NBA and NFL deals are absolutely outrageous, especially with a world that's consuming those things in a very different way than cable subscriptions.