PDA

View Full Version : Semi-OT - Future of Zags ESPN broadcasts?



strikenowhere
03-06-2017, 06:57 AM
Hey guys,

It appears that Disney is about to order another round of layoffs at the mothership due to ESPN being a drag on Disney's bottom line. Does anyone more knowledgeable than me know the current status of the WCC's broadcasting contract and if they think this could be affected in any way? I'd hate to think that ESPN/Disney would want to cut loose on non-P5 conference games to save money too (not that that has been mentioned at all).

Thanks

jazzdelmar
03-06-2017, 07:03 AM
This, more than anything, would inspire the bigwigs up at GU to skedaddle to a real BB conference.....the ratings gotta be awful, esp for non GU games.

Kiddwell
03-06-2017, 07:23 AM
ESPN's various channels need to fill their time with content. If not a lot of Zags games (and other WCC teams), then what? Rodeo? (No offense to cowboys, cowgirls.) Roller Derby? (Sorry, Annis "Big Red" Jenkins.)

Have you looked at some of the offerings at the CBS and NBC sports channels? I'd say college BB is of major interest.


:]

jazzdelmar
03-06-2017, 07:26 AM
ESPN's various channels need to fill their time with content. If not a lot of Zags games (and other WCC teams), then what? Rodeo? (No offense to cowboys, cowgirls.) Roller Derby? (Sorry, Annis "Big Red" Jenkins.)

Have you looked at some of the offerings at the CBS and NBC sports channels? I'd say college BB is of major interest.


:]

Maybe, but ESPN is doubling down on a lot of sports patter/talk/argument shows. All manner of guest host computations and subject matter. The saddest is Dan Lebatard's show that features his dad. People watch that? PTI is the gold standard but I suspect the ratings for all these krap shows outdistance many CBB games, especially the late late night WCCs sans GU. Just a thought.

DixieZag
03-06-2017, 07:50 AM
Maybe, but ESPN is doubling down on a lot of sports patter/talk/argument shows. All manner of guest host computations and subject matter. The saddest is Dan Lebatard's show that features his dad. People watch that? PTI is the gold standard but I suspect the ratings for all these krap shows outdistance many CBB games, especially the late late night WCCs sans GU. Just a thought.

Those shows are much cheaper. Certainly true.

Is ESPN really costing Disney money? I thought it made money by the shovel-full, and read that up to $6 of everyone's cable bill is for ESPN alone. I'd be very skeptical that ESPN is losing money.

Doesn't mean they won't dump us. If those crappy shows are getting better ratings at 10:00 p.m. Eastern time than our games, they'll throw them overboard real fast. But, I'd be less worried about them dumping us altogether than them demanding a much lower price in the next go-round of negotiations. They can point to the lack of competitiveness as a primary reason and there'd be little to rebut it.

Jazz's right, too. If the money starts really drying up bc we're hanging at 11 or 12th in conference ratings (with 2 top 20 teams!), that'd be the real test about whether we leave.

Corky
03-06-2017, 07:52 AM
ESPN's various channels need to fill their time with content. If not a lot of Zags games (and other WCC teams), then what? Rodeo? (No offense to cowboys, cowgirls.) Roller Derby? (Sorry, Annis "Big Red" Jenkins.)

Have you looked at some of the offerings at the CBS and NBC sports channels? I'd say college BB is of major interest.


:]

Aussie Rules football. Am I the only one old enough to remember early ESPN? Seems that's all they showed.

Birddog
03-06-2017, 07:57 AM
Those shows are much cheaper. Certainly true.

But, are we certain that ESPN is costing Disney money? I was under the impression that ESPN was making money by the shovel-full, (hence, ESPN2, ESPN News, "U") and that up to $6 of everyone's cable bill is for ESPN alone. I am not certain and I'm not looking it up, but I'd be very skeptical that ESPN is losing money.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't dump us in order to make more money, not at all. If those crappy shows are getting better ratings at 10:00 p.m. Eastern time than our games, they'll throw them overboard real fast. But, I'd be less worried about them dumping us altogether than them demanding a much lower price in the next go-round of negotiations. They can point to the lack of competitiveness as a primary reason and there'd be little to rebut it.

Jazz's right, too. If the money starts really drying up bc we're hanging at 11 or 12th in conference ratings (with 2 top 20 teams!), that'd be the real test about whether we leave.

ESPN is going through $$$$ like bacon through a goose. Their NFL contract is the primary loser but there are others. It's easily googled. There have been experiments in broadcasting games with no announcers on site. That could well be the future of a lot of "live" sports events. Cutting travel costs and employing more B. C, and D team announcers is on the horizon.

DixieZag
03-06-2017, 08:18 AM
ESPN is going through $$$$ like bacon through a goose. Their NFL contract is the primary loser but there are others. It's easily googled. There have been experiments in broadcasting games with no announcers on site. That could well be the future of a lot of "live" sports events. Cutting travel costs and employing more B. C, and D team announcers is on the horizon.

Thanks for seconding the claim. It sure hits me as strange, given that the goose that was golden for a long time.

I see your point, though. A couple of NFL-sized bad contracts could blast through a lot of profit.

And, you note, live sporting events are expensive, especially as compared to talk shows.

Thx to you and OP

Section 116
03-06-2017, 08:21 AM
Corky, you're not the only who remembers ESPN's early years and Aussie rules football. Matter of fact I suspect there are many here, and everywhere for that matter, who have no idea what ESPN stands for?

TexasZagFan
03-06-2017, 08:24 AM
I've got news for ESPN: decrease the number of Zags games on their station, and I cut the cable.

Zagdawg
03-06-2017, 08:33 AM
Contract runs through 2018-19 year

"The West Coast Conference and ESPN announced today an eight-year contract extension that will make the ESPN networks the conference's men's basketball national television home through the 2018-19 school year."

http://www.wccsports.com/news/sports_m-baskbl_spec-rel_060811aaa_html

Article on talent leaving ESPN

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2016/04/28/Media/ESPN.aspx

TexasZag
03-06-2017, 08:44 AM
I've got news for ESPN: decrease the number of Zags games on their station, and I cut the cable.

I cut the cable years ago, so I don't get to see the Zags when games aren't carried on the WCC or some other streaming service. Regardless of the sport, when ESPN takes a high enough interest in an event, that's it for me. No can watch. So I won't miss ESPN in the slightest.

kitzbuel
03-06-2017, 08:53 AM
Those shows are much cheaper. Certainly true.

Is ESPN really costing Disney money? I thought it made money by the shovel-full, and read that up to $6 of everyone's cable bill is for ESPN alone. I'd be very skeptical that ESPN is losing money.

Doesn't mean they won't dump us. If those crappy shows are getting better ratings at 10:00 p.m. Eastern time than our games, they'll throw them overboard real fast. But, I'd be less worried about them dumping us altogether than them demanding a much lower price in the next go-round of negotiations. They can point to the lack of competitiveness as a primary reason and there'd be little to rebut it.

Jazz's right, too. If the money starts really drying up bc we're hanging at 11 or 12th in conference ratings (with 2 top 20 teams!), that'd be the real test about whether we leave.
I really don't know about this. Zag games, along with SMC and BYU are the content ESPN is buying. I actually think Zag games could be more accessible if they were not under ESPN. The value will be there and there are increasing internet options for making the games available. In the long term I think it makes the cost of viewing Zag games less expensive.

I don't think we need to tie our broadcasting value to a sinking, obsolete monolith like cable TV.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

hegotit!
03-06-2017, 08:56 AM
You should looking into Sling or one of the other streaming services TexasZag. Like you I cut the cord to cable a few years ago and have never regretted it.

webspinnre
03-06-2017, 09:01 AM
Contract runs through 2018-19 year

"The West Coast Conference and ESPN announced today an eight-year contract extension that will make the ESPN networks the conference's men's basketball national television home through the 2018-19 school year."

http://www.wccsports.com/news/sports_m-baskbl_spec-rel_060811aaa_html

Article on talent leaving ESPN

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2016/04/28/Media/ESPN.aspx

It's hard for me to get upset about any of that "talent" leaving.

PeninsulaDog
03-06-2017, 09:08 AM
ESPN is facing the same problems other networks are dealing with -- most significantly, the manner in which viewers now want (and get) content. The trend is certainly away from netting millions of viewers in live telecasts and selling television advertising at a premium, and toward streaming content wherever and whenever people want it. I'm certain ESPN's digital vision loses money hand-over-fist -- huge production and maintenance costs, declining revenue from online advertising, and the loss of premium subscribers at a pretty rapid clip. What does it all mean? ESPN will look to drive down costs wherever they can -- remote broadcasters for lower-profile live events (WCC games?), less interesting original content (no more e.g. 30 for 30?), and more cheaply produced, lousy, air-filling, mind-numbing content like the crap that airs virtually all day on their networks: Mindless talking heads droning about NFL combines 18 weeks before the combines, or what's wrong with Johnny Manziel, or why Spike Lee doesn't like Phil Jackson, etc. etc.

coolhandzag
03-06-2017, 10:07 AM
Have anyone seen ESPN lately? Sweet baby Hey-Zeus! The cartoons my children watch on PBS are FAR & AWAY more intelligent then the sports talk shows currently broadcast, and some of those cartoons aren't so great. I can't figure out why the Man with the Yellow Hat is so irresponsible with George.

Jazz probably has a point. If the Zags aren't broadcast regularly due to a change in conference electronic, and digital viability.....a change in conference may be on the horizon.

ProVeeZag
03-06-2017, 10:10 AM
I cut the cable years ago, so I don't get to see the Zags when games aren't carried on the WCC or some other streaming service. Regardless of the sport, when ESPN takes a high enough interest in an event, that's it for me. No can watch. So I won't miss ESPN in the slightest.

That's almost like cutting a car payment every month!

CDC84
03-06-2017, 10:19 AM
I once tuned into ESPN2 late at night a few years ago and saw a weed wacking contest. I'm serious. These competitors had these huge cutlasses and it was a race to the finish line to see who could wack off their lane of weeds the fastest.

I thought, "Now that's a station that's struggling for programming."

CDC84
03-06-2017, 10:22 AM
ESPN will look to drive down costs wherever they can -- remote broadcasters for lower-profile live events (WCC games?),

It's already happened. Wasn't last season's GU game at BYU a remoter?

The problem with the remote thing is that you might as well just mute your clicker. One of the only reasons why the announcers are useful to me is to get updates on injuries, explanations for calls, etc.....remote announcers in Bridgeport who are announcing a game in Malibu aren't able to interview training staff or talk to the lead official. When a hard foul happens, the remote announcers sound like some guy who is commenting ad lib during CNN's coverage of a building fire or something. It's awkward.

Mr Vulture
03-06-2017, 10:35 AM
About the only thing I watch on ESPN is Gonzaga or the NFL. I watch NFL network for anything in regards to the Draft or NFL news, MLB network for MLB news, the NCAA Tournament isn't on ESPN, and I can't stand the repetitive talk shows they run with basically the same format. It sounds to me like they are going to be cutting the higher priced personalities. Truthfully, if I'm watching a sports related talk show it's typically Rich Eisen or Colin Cowherd...in that order.

sullyzag66
03-06-2017, 10:35 AM
Hey guys,

It appears that Disney is about to order another round of layoffs at the mothership due to ESPN being a drag on Disney's bottom line. Does anyone more knowledgeable than me know the current status of the WCC's broadcasting contract and if they think this could be affected in any way? I'd hate to think that ESPN/Disney would want to cut loose on non-P5 conference games to save money too (not that that has been mentioned at all).

Thanks

So this is a thread looking for content?

strikenowhere
03-06-2017, 10:43 AM
So this is a thread looking for content?

No, this is a thread asking a legitimate question regarding the Zag's future on television, particularly as it was instrumental to help driving Gonzaga's rise in popularity with fans and recruits over the years.

Zagceo
03-06-2017, 10:52 AM
Corky, you're not the only who remembers ESPN's early years and Aussie rules football. Matter of fact I suspect there are many here, and everywhere for that matter, who have no idea what ESPN stands for?

How bout the Spokane connection that helped launch ESPN?

Creating the empire (https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Empire-No-Holds-Barred-Transformed-Culture/dp/1572436719)

jazzdelmar
03-06-2017, 11:01 AM
Another plus w the mindless talk shows is they can be repeated around the clock; play by play not a good fit, though they try.

DixieZag
03-06-2017, 11:04 AM
I really don't know about this. Zag games, along with SMC and BYU are the content ESPN is buying. I actually think Zag games could be more accessible if they were not under ESPN. The value will be there and there are increasing internet options for making the games available. In the long term I think it makes the cost of viewing Zag games less expensive.

I don't think we need to tie our broadcasting value to a sinking, obsolete monolith like cable TV.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Well thought out.

But, isn't that one of the concerns Jazz addressed? It might well be better for us here with respect to accessibility (globally, actually) but would that not likely cost the school money?

I know the entire media world is changing and I know that there's even less interest among the young with live sports - more into gaming and such. I certainly don't feel sorry for Disney, nor want to cling to out-dated models. But, the school's overall interests are best-served with maximizing their BB value and I wonder if that figure is - actually - tied to that outdated model. Dunno. Thx.

Snowkane
03-06-2017, 11:10 AM
ESPN is a sinking ship, both television and radio. Have you listened to Mike & Mike or the Dan Lebetard Show? Have you noticed their television talent is now gone. Plus, that new show "The 6" is B-A-D.

TexasZagFan
03-06-2017, 11:26 AM
ESPN is a sinking ship, both television and radio. Have you listened to Mike & Mike or the Dan Lebetard Show? Have you noticed their television talent is now gone. Plus, that new show "The 6" is B-A-D.

You just aren't hip enough for the new show at 6 EST. Judging by their commercials lately for all of their "talent", they're not exactly commanding prime rates from their advertisers.

BTW, I'm even less hip than you are...lol.

Markburn1
03-06-2017, 11:29 AM
ESPN's penchant for inserting politics into a large portion of their programming, including live broadcasts, has been a monumental disaster. Consumers of sports want to enjoy the actual events without being subjected to a constant barrage of divisive chatter that has nothing to do with being entertained by "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat." It's tiresome and has led to me actually turning the sound down even on live events.

Zagger
03-06-2017, 11:44 AM
I would guess with the current level of Zag basketball success + highly likely continued success = TV coverage for each Zag game into the fore'see'able future. The reason I put 'see' in '' is if it is via ROOT Sports .... some rabbit feet, crossed fingers, etc. may also be required ;)

gonzagafan62
03-06-2017, 11:47 AM
ESPN's penchant for inserting politics into a large portion of their programming, including live broadcasts, has been a monumental disaster. Consumers of sports want to enjoy the actual events without being subjected to a constant barrage of divisive chatter that has nothing to do with being entertained by "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat." It's tiresome and has led to me actually turning the sound down even on live events.

It's in part by their constant coverage of what athletes do in their free time or on their crimes. They beat a dead horse so bad the dead horse dies again. Covering things, especially racial, criminal and voluntary (like steroids in baseball) need to be talked about. But not to the extent they do it. Maybe five or ten minutes everytime something happens would be fine. But they go on for DAYS WEEKS AND SOMETIMES MONTHS about the same stupid stuff! Seriously have stopped watching since ESPN became TMZ. TMZ has killed society! TMZ is evil!

ESPN has been dead to me outside of sporting contests. Haven't watched sports center, their talk shows, pregames nothing. Used to love it. Used to love everything.

Their liberal political correctness and filling a perception of a general consensus to milk the cow and always fill time slots of 4 sports centers with the same story and very BRIEF highlights and talking of the actual games has made ESPN UNBEARABLE!

We want to see more talk of the games, highlights and talking about the games and highlights I really couldn't give two craps less about off the field or what kind of donuts lebron eats for supper! Only care about the games. That's it. The rest don't effect me

maynard g krebs
03-06-2017, 12:15 PM
Their liberal political correctness

What are you talking about? I honestly have no idea what you mean. Examples?

strikenowhere
03-06-2017, 12:31 PM
I suppose its that time again, where we bid this thread farewell.

Markburn1
03-06-2017, 12:38 PM
What are you talking about? I honestly have no idea what you mean. Examples?



By Heat Street Staff | 6:37 pm, January 30, 2017

ESPN’s viewership continues to slump. The sports cable network, majority owned by Walt Disney, is down to 87.8 million domestic subscribers according to just released figures from Nielsen. Subscriptions are decreasing each month.

ESPN has lost its primetime ratings crown to Fox News Channel and ratings of “Monday Night Football” are down 12% from the previous season.

Many of ESPN’s woes stem from so-called “cord cutting”. TV viewers are increasingly shunning pricey cable TV packages in favor of trimmed down options that don’t include the high priced sports network.

But growing evidence would suggest the subscriber slump is also driven, in part, by viewer disgust with ESPN’s politics. The network has become increasingly liberal of late, not bothering to disguise the left-wing sympathies of its presenters and commentators.

Viewers, it seems, are getting sick of the side order of conventional liberalism served up with their diet of sport by ESPN personalities such as Max Kellerman and Michael Wilbon:

Other instances of liberal bias include giving Caitlyn Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage Award for heroism, endorsing militant pressure group Black Lives Matter at the ESPYs, firing Curt Schilling for not being more supportive about transgender bathrooms and awarding President Obama a spurious “First Fan” award as part of its MLK Day tribute.

There was also the NFL-National Anthems controversy in which ESPN seemed to sympathize with the anti-American actions of Colin Kaepernick, and when the network turned a blind eye when panelist Kevin Blackistone called the national anthem a “war anthem.”

Recently ESPNW, the network’s womens sport website, gave sycophantic support to the Women’s March on Washington as though it was a bipartisan sporting event:

Even ESPN’s coverage of the Australian Open Championships, one of the finest Grand Slams in recent memory, was marred by the firing of commentator Doug Adler for a mis-heard word that was mistakenly believed to be racist.

Prominent ESPN figures are admitting there’s a problem with the politics. Highly-respected anchorman Bob Ley recently said about ESPN, that”the one place we have miles to go is diversity of thought” while ESPN Public Editor Jim Brady confessed in a letter on its website last December: “Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers — both liberal and conservative — that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.”

Politics doesn’t seem to be a problem for veteran ESPN President John Skipper who said: “Diversity and inclusion…are long-standing values that drive fundamental fairness while providing us with the widest possible pool of talent to create the smartest and most creative staff. We do not view this as a political stance but as a human stance.”

But word in Disney is that ESPN’s woes will soon send John Skipper out to sea.

Ironically a new President who ESPN openly loathes....

bartruff1
03-06-2017, 12:45 PM
Warning....News Corp.....owns Heat Street

TexasZag
03-06-2017, 01:00 PM
You should looking into Sling or one of the other streaming services TexasZag. Like you I cut the cord to cable a few years ago and have never regretted it.

I use Sling already; however, I have the Fox Sports package because the Rangers, Mavericks, and Stars all have their games broadcast through Fox Sports Southwest. I don't recall seeing that I can add ESPN without buying a different package, but I'll take another look. Thanks!

Hoopaholic
03-06-2017, 01:01 PM
It's in part by their constant coverage of what athletes do in their free time or on their crimes. They beat a dead horse so bad the dead horse dies again. Covering things, especially racial, criminal and voluntary (like steroids in baseball) need to be talked about. But not to the extent they do it. Maybe five or ten minutes everytime something happens would be fine. But they go on for DAYS WEEKS AND SOMETIMES MONTHS about the same stupid stuff! Seriously have stopped watching since ESPN became TMZ. TMZ has killed society! TMZ is evil!

ESPN has been dead to me outside of sporting contests. Haven't watched sports center, their talk shows, pregames nothing. Used to love it. Used to love everything.

Their liberal political correctness and filling a perception of a general consensus to milk the cow and always fill time slots of 4 sports centers with the same story and very BRIEF highlights and talking of the actual games has made ESPN UNBEARABLE!

We want to see more talk of the games, highlights and talking about the games and highlights I really couldn't give two craps less about off the field or what kind of donuts lebron eats for supper! Only care about the games. That's it. The rest don't effect me

This. Thank you

Hoopaholic
03-06-2017, 01:02 PM
Zags should start a media broadcast program and go out on own subscription based and on (Roku) etc

TexasZag
03-06-2017, 01:03 PM
That's almost like cutting a car payment every month!

Damn close! Which is why I did it. Cable bills were climbing like there was no tomorrow. Well for them, there wasn't!

bartruff1
03-06-2017, 01:10 PM
It has nothing to do with programing or politics...... it is competition from alternatives to cable bundling...it is a obsolete business model....the Crosby is dead, this is supposed to be a politics free zone....

gonzagafan62
03-06-2017, 01:14 PM
What are you talking about? I honestly have no idea what you mean. Examples?

Like if I used the phrase "liberal amounts of political correctness have been consumed by us the consumer"

We all know ESPN leans left, and that doesn't bother me. The part that does is feeding that on sports networks. Curt schillings game 6 being left off ESPNs 30 for 30 is something so egregious that it makes Vince McMahon look good. The bloody sock game happened even if ESPN doesn't want to recognize it because of their childishness.... btw yes what schilling did was terrible...

gonzagafan62
03-06-2017, 01:18 PM
It has nothing to do with programing or politics...... it is competition from alternatives to cable bundling...it is a obsolete business model....the Crosby is dead, this is supposed to be a politics free zone....

You're right. It's not about politics. It's about the constant hammering of eveything. People asked a question about why the ratings are down. That's why. Not about politics but about the fact they are driving away from what people actually want on their sports programming. If they went back to what they had in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s it's be way better

bartruff1
03-06-2017, 01:30 PM
Well you are welcome to your opinion, I will go with Goldman and other analysts ....read the 3rd quarter report, the price target is $125 and they invested one billion in BamTech (with a option to buy it all) with the intent to go to direst streaming to customers...

If you like rumors, they might just buy Netflix to add additional streaming capacity .... every child should own Disney

bartruff1
03-06-2017, 01:57 PM
I suppose its that time again, where we bid this thread farewell.

I hope so...this should have been closed a long time ago..

Markburn1
03-06-2017, 02:39 PM
I hope so...this should have been closed a long time ago..

Why? Appears to be a civil discussion to me. If you'll notice, in my original post I didn't indicate which way I thought ESPN was leaning, only that they were injecting politics into nearly every program on the air. The fact that is is obvious which way they lean should be an indicator of why they are annoying paying customers from roughly half the nation. Rejecting that out of hand by saying it's not a factor in lost revenue is myopic.

maynard g krebs
03-06-2017, 02:56 PM
By Heat Street Staff | 6:37 pm, January 30, 2017

ESPN’s viewership continues to slump. The sports cable network, majority owned by Walt Disney, is down to 87.8 million domestic subscribers according to just released figures from Nielsen. Subscriptions are decreasing each month.

ESPN has lost its primetime ratings crown to Fox News Channel and ratings of “Monday Night Football” are down 12% from the previous season.

Many of ESPN’s woes stem from so-called “cord cutting”. TV viewers are increasingly shunning pricey cable TV packages in favor of trimmed down options that don’t include the high priced sports network.

But growing evidence would suggest the subscriber slump is also driven, in part, by viewer disgust with ESPN’s politics. The network has become increasingly liberal of late, not bothering to disguise the left-wing sympathies of its presenters and commentators.

Viewers, it seems, are getting sick of the side order of conventional liberalism served up with their diet of sport by ESPN personalities such as Max Kellerman and Michael Wilbon:

Other instances of liberal bias include giving Caitlyn Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage Award for heroism, endorsing militant pressure group Black Lives Matter at the ESPYs, firing Curt Schilling for not being more supportive about transgender bathrooms and awarding President Obama a spurious “First Fan” award as part of its MLK Day tribute.

There was also the NFL-National Anthems controversy in which ESPN seemed to sympathize with the anti-American actions of Colin Kaepernick, and when the network turned a blind eye when panelist Kevin Blackistone called the national anthem a “war anthem.”

Recently ESPNW, the network’s womens sport website, gave sycophantic support to the Women’s March on Washington as though it was a bipartisan sporting event:

Even ESPN’s coverage of the Australian Open Championships, one of the finest Grand Slams in recent memory, was marred by the firing of commentator Doug Adler for a mis-heard word that was mistakenly believed to be racist.

Prominent ESPN figures are admitting there’s a problem with the politics. Highly-respected anchorman Bob Ley recently said about ESPN, that”the one place we have miles to go is diversity of thought” while ESPN Public Editor Jim Brady confessed in a letter on its website last December: “Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers — both liberal and conservative — that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.”

Politics doesn’t seem to be a problem for veteran ESPN President John Skipper who said: “Diversity and inclusion…are long-standing values that drive fundamental fairness while providing us with the widest possible pool of talent to create the smartest and most creative staff. We do not view this as a political stance but as a human stance.”

But word in Disney is that ESPN’s woes will soon send John Skipper out to sea.

Ironically a new President who ESPN openly loathes....

Thanks for the example. Gives some clarity to where some of you are coming from. I'll leave it at that.

maynard g krebs
03-06-2017, 03:03 PM
Like if I used the phrase "liberal amounts of political correctness have been consumed by us the consumer"

We all know ESPN leans left, and that doesn't bother me. The part that does is feeding that on sports networks.

It was an honest question; no subtext. I just watch games on espn and almost never have any interest in their supposed politics. Had no idea that they have any beyond praising/glorifying the military (games at bases etc.) And since you asked, no, I don't like the above phrase in quotes, simply because it sounds to me like gibberish. As does the sentence "The part that does is feeding that on sports networks." English please.

gonzagafan62
03-06-2017, 03:10 PM
It was an honest question; no subtext. I just watch games on espn and almost never have any interest in their supposed politics. Had no idea that they have any beyond praising/glorifying the military (games at bases etc.) And since you asked, no, I don't like the above phrase in quotes, simply because it sounds to me like gibberish. As does the sentence "The part that does is feeding that on sports networks." English please.

I wasn't being argumentive. Just stating my opinion. No hard feelings towards your question at all

DixieZag
03-06-2017, 03:20 PM
Back to topic.

It would be interesting to see if GU could set up its own streaming feature, though I'm sure it would be precluded by the current WCC contract. I think many of you are on to things regarding the evolving media and I know the AD is pretty forward-looking.

basketballzag
03-06-2017, 03:32 PM
Back to topic.

It would be interesting to see if GU could set up its own streaming feature, though I'm sure it would be precluded by the current WCC contract. I think many of you are on to things regarding the evolving media and I know the AD is pretty forward-looking.

ESPN had the monopoly for a long time and now they have real competition in Fox, NBC Sports, and CBS Sports, plus others who are more online focused and a million miles ahead of ESPN plus they aren't saddled with the horrific debts they incurred with some of these nonsensical contracts they signed. Gonzaga is a brand name that anyone of those networks would kill to have in their line-up or will the Zags head off and create their own network. Jazz is 100% correct though if ESPN even suggests dropping the WCC then Gonzaga bolts for a new conference within hours. Way too much money at stake for Gonzaga and its financial sponsors to allow them to flounder in the WCC without adequate national coverage.

Bogozags
03-06-2017, 05:07 PM
I've been watching ESPN for decades and have noticed their content has become less interesting. Someone mentioned early ESPN and Australian Rules Football, heck I loved watching that more than US Football...

I think ESPN missed the train when they let March Madness get away from them. That was a cash cow they lost and then they made a bid for the NFL and it appears as though that move has become less than profitable...like a black hole.

They will have to adjust to survive BUT I don't see cutting out programming as the answer as ESPN will loose even more of its audience due to less quality programming...seems like a Catch-22...

Also, not sure to "which" conference GU would jump. It sure wouldn't be the BEast or any of the P-5 Conferences!

zagfan24
03-06-2017, 05:15 PM
The big reason they are hemorrhaging money is the HUGE amounts spent on contracts with the NFL and NBA. That, and cable cutting as a close second. It has almost nothing to do with politics; people will say they are rejecting a network/station but almost nobody really does. Their content is increasingly bad BECAUSE they are losing money elsewhere and are forced to fill the airwaves with minimal programming. Effect, not cause.