Asked for numbers almost a week ago... finally got some to look at. Gracias.
CML got his annual extension...
- Thread starter Coug95man2
- Start date
No -I have no plans on stepping down from an imaginary high horse upon which I am not currently seated.
I am suggesting that the catastrophic state is far sooner than you are acknowledging - if, in fact, it hasn't already arrived, it shall be soon.
And we shall agree that "they" need to improve.
"They" may even need to retire to provide an opportunity for improvement. But "they' are so highly regarded amongst certain circles, the mere suggestion of such is considered heresy.
Call me a heretic.
I know this is the internet, and I should know better, but this response is exactly why people hate each other on the internet and there are so many stupid circular arguements.
You, FINALLY, recieved a well educated/researched/thoughtful/analytical address to your concerns.... and what do you do?
You double-down and dig your heels in the ground based on gut feeling, perceptions and assumptions. This example is literally why no one can talk about issues to each other anymore.
Shame on you dude, seriously....
Funny...I did reach out to Google before I wrote my Steele comment. The last article I saw said she was replaced in the countdown show but is still under contract and employed by ESPN.
The budget cuts have zip to do with who got laid off and who didn't. Their problems have zip to do with what Didka said about Kapernak. Are the Hasselbacks still on the NFL shows? Tim is married to one of the more conservative talkers out there. Do his views mirrors hers, I don't know.
People were laid off because of the size of their contracts. The reason the ESPN is struggling is not because of Mike Ditkas views on the world, but rather they paid too much in broadcasting rights to the NBA at the time when the young people were streaming their content instead of paying Comcast to watch it in their homes. Cable subscriptions were down by 2 million right at the time the NBA contract was inked.
I thought people hated people on the internet cause they were dicks. Sort of hard to hate someone when you don't know who they are and we play in this imaginary world.
Lets say I agree with you CP, what does that get you? A sense of pride I give you a thumbs up?
Let me ask you the following, is Mike Leach a top 20 coach?
First of all, no one is saying the demise of ESPN is based solely on their bias political views. But obviously you didn't read my ESPN article that delves pretty deep into this. You are correct, they payed too much for their contracts. AND at the same time, the viewership is declining. I'm sure there are multiple reasons why (economy being a big one) but in today's political climate, I found ONE reason and it's easy to see. And it's fairly well documented. An ESPN writer even acknowledges it. See below the links.
The firings I outlined, as I stated, had NOTHING to do with the budget cuts. ESPN was explicitly clear on those that I outlined (except Steele) why they were dismissed. Steele's timing does raise eyebrows though. And those were political. THAT is the point. It's also about perception. And at best, they have ignored how they are forming this perception. At worst, it isn't perception but they WANT to be a left wing political voice instead of a sports network.
And ultimately, as YOU pointed out... ESPN is comprised mostly of Dems. To bring up politics with that lop-sided view, is begging to alienate half the viewers, aka half the nation. I was only pointing out that if you're going to bring up politics, which they admitted they have done and they outlined HOW they wanted it done with majority of Dem's hired, you should probably be more even keeled about it. OR... be prepared to chase off a portion of your viewers... which they have done.
This ain't that hard...
PR101...maybe marketing 101...https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/...ou-please-take-the-politics-outside.html?_r=1
http://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/...espn-dealing-with-changing-political-dynamics
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espy-politics-liberal-espys-conservative.html
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/os-espn-curt-schilling-david-whitley-0831-20150830-column.html
Personally, I am more inclined to turn off ESPN now than I used to be. I used to keep it on often, even if just in the background, when I was doing other stuff. I consider myself pretty centrist politically, but leaning toward the right side of center on economic issues (and, while in the middle or even left-leaning on social issues, annoyed by victim mentalities).
I get annoyed by all of the PC and left-wing BS on there. Not seething angry, threatening to cancel my cable subscription, or anything like that, but just annoyed by stupid stuff like giving Caitlyn Jenner a Courage Award (and not out of any malevolence or even dislike toward her or anyone similarly situated, but because that award used to go to people who had demonstrated extraordinary courage) and less likely to want to keep the channel on. I tune in because I want cool sports stories and highlights, not political propaganda. I'm more likely to mute it or change the channel when the political--or, more properly, I suppose, SJW--content is on, which is all too frequent.
If you extrapolate from that to the highly polarized political environment we live in, you can see how a lot of people might be much more pissed off and inclined to take more drastic measures like canceling cable or complaining that they don't want to pay for ESPN. From a demographic perspective, I doubt the stereotypical conservative guy is likely to become a cord-cutter, but I'm sure it's happening to an extent.
Last edited:
Now realize, sports demographics. When looking at sports fans, they lean right by most accounts. So your base leans right and as a station, you are trying to lean left...
On a COMPLETELY funny note about below... Monster Truck rallie's attract people slightly to the left... lol. Who'd a thunk!!!
Did not call you a heretic, stop trying to play a victim card, but I did meet you "half-way"... multiple times.
No victim here. I simply refuse to worship at the Temple of Moos.
Those who wish may do so as their conscience guides, but that doesn't mean 95 theses won't be nailed to the door of the university.
Those who wish may do so as their conscience guides, but that doesn't mean 95 theses won't be nailed to the door of the university.
Hi, Moos cannot authorize the issuing of bonds for athletic department capital projects. That authority rests with the board. Honest question, what are your thoughts on them?
Well, first of all they need to get a new finance guy to vet revenue projections better. Taking the word of two salesmen in Floyd and Moos was a mistake. My rule of thumb has always been take the sales guys projections divide them in half and if the project still is within spitting distance of debt servicing, it has legs. Sales guys ALWAYS overestimate and present the rosiest of scenarios. Somebody should have been providing doomsday/Pac 12 Network is a bust numbers. Prez Schulz appears to be that kind of limit downside risk guy. The next AD will likely have to be of that mindset too.
Second they need to flog themselves soundly as penance.
If that doesn't work, they need to look in the mirror and determine whether they have the cajones to say 'no' every once in a while or just rubber stamp whatever comes their way.
This applies to not only the athletic department.
Wow, that's pretty violent...
Under your leadership Bezos would have been guillotined by now...
First of all, no one is saying the demise of ESPN is based solely on their bias political views. But obviously you didn't read my ESPN article that delves pretty deep into this. You are correct, they payed too much for their contracts. AND at the same time, the viewership is declining. I'm sure there are multiple reasons why (economy being a big one) but in today's political climate, I found ONE reason and it's easy to see. And it's fairly well documented. An ESPN writer even acknowledges it. See below the links.
The firings I outlined, as I stated, had NOTHING to do with the budget cuts. ESPN was explicitly clear on those that I outlined (except Steele) why they were dismissed. Steele's timing does raise eyebrows though. And those were political. THAT is the point. It's also about perception. And at best, they have ignored how they are forming this perception. At worst, it isn't perception but they WANT to be a left wing political voice instead of a sports network.
And ultimately, as YOU pointed out... ESPN is comprised mostly of Dems. To bring up politics with that lop-sided view, is begging to alienate half the viewers, aka half the nation. I was only pointing out that if you're going to bring up politics, which they admitted they have done and they outlined HOW they wanted it done with majority of Dem's hired, you should probably be more even keeled about it. OR... be prepared to chase off a portion of your viewers... which they have done.
This ain't that hard...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/...ou-please-take-the-politics-outside.html?_r=1
http://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/...espn-dealing-with-changing-political-dynamics
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espy-politics-liberal-espys-conservative.html
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/os-espn-curt-schilling-david-whitley-0831-20150830-column.html
I did read the article. My point is simple...the decline of ESPN happened long before Ditka and his conservative views were fired. What did he say that was so outrageous ESPN felt that they had to part ways. How much was ESPN paying him say versus Tim Hassleback, who by the way is pretty conservative.
People might have moved away because they felt ESPN became too liberal. But the damage was done two years ago, not recently as of the last year.
No not really. The "downfall of ESPN had zip to do with political nature as the downfall happened two years ago. They didn't fire Mike Ditka until this year. Even if ESPN was what you would want-neutral- the layoffs were already coming and viewership was already lost. The damage and change was already coming. A great friend of mine and someone I believe you know told me this long ago change was coming.
That's what I said. I said a major reason for their downfall was the size of the contracts. The decline of viewership was probably due in major part due to the economy, among many other points. ONE potential point for declining viewership is this political climate. Even if it's just perceived by those on the right.
And I"ll add, unless you are a conservative, I don't think you have any ground to stand on, regarding how the right might look at this topic.
Just a couple of thoughts. One, I simply disagree what took place that led to what changed at ESPN. It was told to me long before Donald Trump and Mike Ditka's endorsement of him that ESPN was in trouble and huge cuts were in the works. A matter of fact I am pretty sure you know the person who gave me such info.
Is the problem heightened by conservatives feeling shorted by coverage, maybe. Do I think it is a valid concern? Not my place to say.
And you don't need to be a conservative to understand how the right might look at it. You have zero idea how I have voted in the past. But I will say if I was a fiscal conservative for example, does that make me a conservative or do some of my social views make me a raving liberal?
In either case, I don't have to be labeled and pigeonholed into one camp or another to "understand" how one might view it.
I have ZERO problem with Ditka voicing his opinion. NONE. I think he misses the mark for example when Kapernak chose to do what he did. It cam across as either honor your country or leave. From my view, I think Kapernak honored what the many people died for in the many wars that have been fought. Did I lose a lot of respect for Kapernak when I learned he did not vote? Yep. But I think Ditka, Kapernak, and others are given the RIGHT to express themselves. As Kapernak found out, as did Ditka sometimes it comes with consequences.
VC guys would have done much more due diligence on the front side revenue projections and calculated their downside risk accordingly - including extracting several more pounds of flesh for their upfront money. In turn, early investors knew they could have lost everything and were OK with that risk. Public entities aren't afforded such risk/reward options - there is no house money to gamble with, so to speak.
But you already know that.
A 100+ year old institution entrusted with taxpayer dollars should have their s**t together by now.
Except they do, and they did, as I've explained in my thorough post located on page 1 of this thread.
Now realize, sports demographics. When looking at sports fans, they lean right by most accounts. So your base leans right and as a station, you are trying to lean left...
On a COMPLETELY funny note about below... Monster Truck rallie's attract people slightly to the left... lol. Who'd a thunk!!!
Monster truck rallies, making Valentine's Day dates awesome!
ESPN's issues have little, and probably nothing, to do with politics. There are some pissed off people every now and then but as far as I can tell, the real driver for subscriber losses is that people don't want to pay high cable bills and are disconnecting at a higher rate than new subscribers are coming on. And because ESPN is one of the most expensive providers in a cable package, they are more likely to get cut when people are making decisions when money is involved. When people are worked up about something, they often place extra value that's not warranted. I own a BMW and there was a thread on the BMW forum that I frequent where ABC was reporting a rash of random fires involving parked BMW's. They found 42 instances where a parked BMW had spontaneously burned without any outside action. That sounds significant until you read a report that says that there are 150,000 car fires every year in the US. Suddenly, 42 is a statistical anomaly that isn't necessarily meaningful.
ESPN probably should avoid politics, but trying to correlate their decline to politics isn't a logical connection. Their subscriber woes started six years ago at the exact same time that cable companies started seeing decreases. You can argue about what kind of political leaning a table tennis fan has if it makes you feel good, but it's got nothing to do with ESPN's revenue.
ESPN probably should avoid politics, but trying to correlate their decline to politics isn't a logical connection. Their subscriber woes started six years ago at the exact same time that cable companies started seeing decreases. You can argue about what kind of political leaning a table tennis fan has if it makes you feel good, but it's got nothing to do with ESPN's revenue.
So who F'd up the revenue projections?
If you're trying for the last word, be forewarned that I am diagnosed with OCD and can outlast anyone when triggered.
I wouldn't say nothing to do with it, but I think your overall point is accurate. While there has been a great deal of speculation that ESPN getting into politics has led to subscriber losses (not just by people here, but by many others), and I think it likely has led to some, it almost certainly isn't a primary driver.
I think, though, it's worth noting that it's not just subscriber losses, but also viewership, that impacts ESPN's bottom line.
I'm not going to cancel my cable subscription, nor, frankly, would I cancel ESPN itself (if an a la carte option was really feasible, which it is not), based on some mild distaste for the political and social commentary on that channel or those concerns seemingly pervading the channel's coverage and journalism. As I noted, though, I'm much less likely to actually have the channel playing on my TV, and even less likely to have it playing with the volume on. This is a n=1 observation, but at least in my case, I'm not watching or listening to nearly as many of their ads as I used to, and I'm not that politically or socially motivated. I just get annoyed.
I agree that ESPN has been making decisions that are making the channel less enjoyable to watch and that does not help their cause. And advertisers definitely worry about viewers more than subscribers when spending money.
Triggered?
Also Ed can outlast you.
If you are reading this post Ed I mean that as a compliment.
That's like complimenting Idi Amin for outdictatoring Muammar Gaddafi.
