Sports Media Thread

[David]

Amazing...remember when they gave him his own show and it didn't even get better ratings than the AND1 basketball and bowling it was up against on their other networks?

I think you're thinking of Cowherd or Skip Bayless with that with their new shows when they left ESPN. But yeah they are all garbage and any network that pays them millions for their nonsense TV deserves to fail.

 

Nope. It was Stephen A's Quite Frankly in like 2004 or 05.

 

Poker boom was happening then and destroyed it in the ratings too.

[SpongeWorthy]

bring back stump the schwab

[Banedon]

Also, will any of the ESPN radio affiliates be affected? I think Carmen and Jurko are being phased out for @thekapman

 

Robin Lundberg from ESPN Radio NY is out.

[CubinNY]

Also, will any of the ESPN radio affiliates be affected? I think Carmen and Jurko are being phased out for @thekapman

hahahaha

[Derwood]

I just heard that ESPN wants to simulcast MLBNetwork shows, which makes no sense for either network

[jersey cubs fan]

I just heard that ESPN wants to simulcast MLBNetwork shows, which makes no sense for either network

MLB Network doesn't have nearly the same reach as ESPN does, so it makes sense for them to want to be seen by more people and get paid in the process.

 

ESPN can pay MLBN to produce what they already make instead of paying their people to make it. And it's not like their talent can balk at it since ESPN just flooded the market with talent and drove down the costs for everybody in the biz.

 

 

It's also not much different than the simulcasting of already established radio shows.

[Derwood]

I just heard that ESPN wants to simulcast MLBNetwork shows, which makes no sense for either network

MLB Network doesn't have nearly the same reach as ESPN does, so it makes sense for them to want to be seen by more people and get paid in the process.

 

ESPN can pay MLBN to produce what they already make instead of paying their people to make it. And it's not like their talent can balk at it since ESPN just flooded the market with talent and drove down the costs for everybody in the biz.

 

 

It's also not much different than the simulcasting of already established radio shows.

 

If espn is paying MLBN more than MLBN's advertisers, sure. But why lose ratings on your own shows to espn?

[Sammy Sofa]

I just heard that ESPN wants to simulcast MLBNetwork shows, which makes no sense for either network

MLB Network doesn't have nearly the same reach as ESPN does, so it makes sense for them to want to be seen by more people and get paid in the process.

 

ESPN can pay MLBN to produce what they already make instead of paying their people to make it. And it's not like their talent can balk at it since ESPN just flooded the market with talent and drove down the costs for everybody in the biz.

 

 

It's also not much different than the simulcasting of already established radio shows.

 

If espn is paying MLBN more than MLBN's advertisers, sure. But why lose ratings on your own shows to espn?

 

Man, it's almost like MLB is one of the owners of the MLB Network or something.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

with the relative lack of true great mysteries in this world, I can rest easier knowing we now have this

[David]

I just heard that ESPN wants to simulcast MLBNetwork shows, which makes no sense for either network

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Banedon]

I just heard that ESPN wants to simulcast MLBNetwork shows, which makes no sense for either network

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Picking up...meaning simulcasting it? Or it's moving from MLBN to ESPN?

[David]

Wondering the same thing. I can't imagine it'd just be dropped off MLBN, but we'll see.

 

I know people hate that show but I actually like Rose and Millar. I don't expect anything insightful, just fun player interviews and Millar being an idiot. They aren't hot take artists so they don't bother me in their dumbness.

[treebird]

I just heard that ESPN wants to simulcast MLBNetwork shows, which makes no sense for either network

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Picking up...meaning simulcasting it? Or it's moving from MLBN to ESPN?

 

they're just going to point a camera at a TV whenever it's on

[Banedon]

Wondering the same thing. I can't imagine it'd just be dropped off MLBN, but we'll see.

 

I know people hate that show but I actually like Rose and Millar. I don't expect anything insightful, just fun player interviews and Millar being an idiot. They aren't hot take artists so they don't bother me in their dumbness.

 

Yeah I enjoy that show too. I can understand why some wouldn't though.

[David]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Derwood]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Which means it will be watched more on espn2, because it's in more households, right? That's why I don't understand this. If espn is shedding talent, why is a competing network bailing them out?

[Cubswin11]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Which means it will be watched more on espn2, because it's in more households, right? That's why I don't understand this. If espn is shedding talent, why is a competing network bailing them out?

It seems like a mutually beneficial partnership to me, I don't know what you're missing. MLB and ESPN/Disney are pretty close, Disney just bought in to MLB's BAMTech company in the last year.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Cubswin11

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Which means it will be watched more on espn2, because it's in more households, right? That's why I don't understand this. If espn is shedding talent, why is a competing network bailing them out?

 

If I'm a regular viewer of Intentional Talk, I'm going to continue to watch it on MLBN. Little chance of MLBN losing viewers because of this.

 

Instead, they're going to make additional money from ESPN paying them to be able to air that content.

[Cubswin11]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Which means it will be watched more on espn2, because it's in more households, right? That's why I don't understand this. If espn is shedding talent, why is a competing network bailing them out?

 

If I'm a regular viewer of Intentional Talk, I'm going to continue to watch it on MLBN. Little chance of MLBN losing viewers because of this.

 

Instead, they're going to make additional money from ESPN paying them to be able to air that content.

Yeah and ESPN will get to air and profit off a relatively popular show for a sport they pay to air their games 2-4 nights a week that, in theory, should increase interest/exposure of said sport which could/should lead to more viewers of games.

 

This makes a lot of sense for ESPN as it seems they want to provide more content and not necessarily produce it, or at least all of it, based off the comments with the firings yesterday/changing the direction of the company. It benefits MLB because they make more money off a show that likely was tapped out for viewer growth and revenues, or nearly tapped out, if it just stayed on MLBN. They also get more exposure of their sport on a network that airs their product.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Cubswin11

[Ding Dong Johnson]

espn is paying mlb a [expletive] of money to air games. espn is now paying a fee to broadcast another mlb product, which I would assume costs them less money than what it would be to produce an original show to fill that time slot. mlb is making money and getting more exposure for their product

[WrigleyField 22]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Which means it will be watched more on espn2, because it's in more households, right? That's why I don't understand this. If espn is shedding talent, why is a competing network bailing them out?

 

If I'm a regular viewer of Intentional Talk, I'm going to continue to watch it on MLBN. Little chance of MLBN losing viewers because of this.

 

Instead, they're going to make additional money from ESPN paying them to be able to air that content.

I mean, they'll probably lose some regular viewers, which is why they are getting paid.

[Banedon]

 

Which means it will be watched more on espn2, because it's in more households, right? That's why I don't understand this. If espn is shedding talent, why is a competing network bailing them out?

 

If I'm a regular viewer of Intentional Talk, I'm going to continue to watch it on MLBN. Little chance of MLBN losing viewers because of this.

 

Instead, they're going to make additional money from ESPN paying them to be able to air that content.

I mean, they'll probably lose some regular viewers, which is why they are getting paid.

 

Well, no...I mean. Yeah they may lose some viewers, but that's not why they're getting paid. They're getting paid to allow someone else to air content that they produced.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

If I'm a regular viewer of Intentional Talk, I'm going to continue to watch it on MLBN. Little chance of MLBN losing viewers because of this.

 

Instead, they're going to make additional money from ESPN paying them to be able to air that content.

I mean, they'll probably lose some regular viewers, which is why they are getting paid.

 

Well, no...I mean. Yeah they may lose some viewers, but that's not why they're getting paid. They're getting paid to allow someone else to air content that they produced.

Well yea. It factors into the economics though. If 5% of their Intentional Talk viewers are also regular viewers of ESPN2 programming, theres a pretty good chance theyll lose those viewers to ESPN2. So getting paid should in theory offset some or all of that.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

MLBN exists to promote MLB and increase its popularity. If they can get wider distribution of their content without taking a financial bath, then they win even if ESPN 'steals' those viewers.

[Sammy Sofa]

MLBN exists to promote MLB and increase its popularity. If they can get wider distribution of their content without taking a financial bath, then they win even if ESPN 'steals' those viewers.

 

Exactly. Some people are acting like they get a gold coin for each extra viewer who actually watches on the MLBN or some horsefeathers. It just exists to get people to spend money on MLB, ah-doy.