An open letter to ESPN/ABC Sports President George Bodenheimer

S

SandraC

On Vacation
Apr 10, 2008
7,302
0
NJ
The good news is that there is really no need to watch Sportscenter anymore anyway. The MLB Network has MLB Tonight Live when games are on and then Quick Pitch when they're over...certainly no reason to swith to Sportscenter for baseball coverage. Quick Pitch is amazing.

The NBA and NHL networks also have their sports completely and totally covered, and forget the NFL...if you can't find scores and highlights while avoiding the four letter network, you obviously are not trying.

The real bottom line is that the proliferation of games we watch through MLB Extra Innings, NFL Sunday Ticket, NBA League Pass, NHL Center Ice, and, ironically, ESPN Game Plan and Full Court, has made Sportscenter irrelevant.

Just curiuos, since I really never watch Sportscenter...do they give poker results on that show?


Sandra
 
salsadancer7

salsadancer7

SatelliteGuys Master
Jun 1, 2004
28,020
183
South Florida
Perhaps the Comcast - NBC merger won't be so bad after all; if they continue molding the Vs. Network into a competitor for ESPN. I know know many people think Vs is a joke with all the lance armstrong and bull riding coverage.

Funny you mention that because that is how ESPN started....LOL!
 
M

Mr Tony

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Nov 17, 2003
372
103
Mankato, MN
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

All the NHL Network programming is TSN's ?

If that was the case, it would be called TSN NHL Network

I think what he's saying is the older games or replays of recent games are taken from TSN and CBC and not ESPN.

The Canadian version of NHL Network is mainly owned by TSN so they show lots of TSN hockey programming ;)
 
HD MM

HD MM

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 2, 2006
15,837
0
Believeland, Ohio
Look, I know bashing ESPN and moaning and groaning about how some fictional alternative sports station would be better, but the fact remains that viewers determine programing, not the other way around.

Blame the public, not ESPN. "The Leader" is only showing what people want to see and talking about what people want to hear.
 
Islandguy43

Islandguy43

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 24, 2006
2,128
0
Grand Island, NY
"The Leader" is only showing what people want to see and talking about what people want to hear.

Or better yet, show or talk about what makes them the most revenue in advertising, for the least amount of expenditure on their part.
 
S

SamCdbs

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
May 7, 2008
2,135
736
IMHO,

SportsCenter competitor. The fields are littered with the bones of people that tried to take on SC. CNN gave up. FSN had Retard Boy's face on every outfield wall and dasher board in every league and he had failed before baseball season was over (of course, Retard Boy has failed at everything he has tried). Syndicators tried it. FSN earlier tried its weird "national-local" deal.

But I say we have a competitor to SC. If all you care about is sports and none of the foolishness. Each of the major "sport-specific" networks has a show about its sport that it repeats all evening and morning. Try this. If you really care about sports, and not hype, you understand that until September the only sport that has news on a weekday is baseball. Watch Quich Pitch/MLB Tonight Live and you will get all the info you need.
 
Will94

Will94

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jul 11, 2008
749
3
USA
ESPN is a reflection of our culture. SportsCenter is unwatchably (sp?) devoid of content for many of us. It's a classic example of style over substance, as is much of ESPN's programming. On the other hand, I saw a survey this last 4th of July that 26% of those questioned didn't know who we defeated to obtain our freedom. A lot of us apparently don't place much value in intelligence.

idiocracy.jpg
 
T

TMC1982

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 26, 2008
206
2
The basic problems with ESPN these days if you ask me, is that number one, without a strong rival or competitor (Versus is not quite there yet, Fox Sports Net is really more of collection of regional sports nets than a strongly concentrated entity, and Turner already tried and failed with CNN/SI), they'll continue to rest on their laurels so to speak. The same sort of thing happened to World Wrestling Entertainment when World Championship Wrestling and Extreme Championship Wrestling went under in the year 2001. Also, ESPN seems more interested in being a "brand name"/marketing machine (a la Coca-Cola) than a viable journalistic source. In a way This is partially why I believe that if ESPN doesn't have a contract with your league (like the NHL at the moment), it's not going to get much press or exposure. This has become even more apparent when Disney came into the fold. ESPN is more interested in being the news and being in bed with pop culture than reporting it. In a way, it's arguable that ESPN has turned into the Fox News (where larger than life personalities, frequently delving into sensationalism, and carving your own personal ends/means take prescience more than anything) and/or MTV of sports television.

I'm a regular visitor to the Sports Media Watch website, which among other things analysis television ratings for major sporting events. Anyway, recently they analyzed the current pros and cons for broadcast networks' and cable outlets' overall schedules/coverage. While sister outlet ABC had gotten its own assessment for the year 2010, ESPN hasn't as of yet. So in the mean time, all that I have to work with is the first "State of the Networks" address from 2007:
State of the networks: ESPN, Part III

State of the networks: ESPN, Part II

State of the networks: ESPN, Part I

SportsCenter competitor. The fields are littered with the bones of people that tried to take on SC. CNN gave up. FSN had Retard Boy's face on every outfield wall and dasher board in every league and he had failed before baseball season was over (of course, Retard Boy has failed at everything he has tried). Syndicators tried it. FSN earlier tried its weird "national-local" deal.

What really hurt CNN's Sports Tonight was 9/11. Soon afterwards, CNN thought that it would be better to go with strictly an "all news line-up", which has been like that ever since. Sports Tonight was finally done for good when CNN/SI shut down several months later.

progress.gif
 
Jimbo

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
66,014
5,372
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
The basic problems with ESPN these days if you ask me, is that number one, without a strong rival or competitor (Versus is not quite there yet, Fox Sports Net is really more of collection of regional sports nets than a strongly concentrated entity, and Turner already tried and failed with CNN/SI), they'll continue to rest on their laurels so to speak. The same sort of thing happened to World Wrestling Entertainment when World Championship Wrestling and Extreme Championship Wrestling went under in the year 2001. Also, ESPN seems more interested in being a "brand name"/marketing machine (a la Coca-Cola) than a viable journalistic source. In a way This is partially why I believe that if ESPN doesn't have a contract with your league (like the NHL at the moment), it's not going to get much press or exposure. This has become even more apparent when Disney came into the fold. ESPN is more interested in being the news and being in bed with pop culture than reporting it. In a way, it's arguable that ESPN has turned into the Fox News (where larger than life personalities, frequently delving into sensationalism, and carving your own personal ends/means take prescience more than anything) and/or MTV of sports television.

I'm a regular visitor to the Sports Media Watch website, which among other things analysis television ratings for major sporting events. Anyway, recently they analyzed the current pros and cons for broadcast networks' and cable outlets' overall schedules/coverage. While sister outlet ABC had gotten its own assessment for the year 2010, ESPN hasn't as of yet. So in the mean time, all that I have to work with is the first "State of the Networks" address from 2007:
State of the networks: ESPN, Part III

State of the networks: ESPN, Part II

State of the networks: ESPN, Part I



What really hurt CNN's Sports Tonight was 9/11. Soon afterwards, CNN thought that it would be better to go with strictly an "all news line-up", which has been like that ever since. Sports Tonight was finally done for good when CNN/SI shut down several months later.

progress.gif

CNN already had their All News Network in place.... CNN

I use to watch CNN/SI most nights, I liked Fred Hickman and a few others, then it went away.

CNN covered 9/11 endlessly on the Mothership side of things CNN, no need to move it to CNN/SI as well.
 
salsadancer7

salsadancer7

SatelliteGuys Master
Jun 1, 2004
28,020
183
South Florida
CNN already had their All News Network in place.... CNN

I use to watch CNN/SI most nights, I liked Fred Hickman and a few others, then it went away.

CNN covered 9/11 endlessly on the Mothership side of things CNN, no need to move it to CNN/SI as well.

:up:up:up
 
Hart5150

Hart5150

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 27, 2004
3,271
156
Temple, Pa
The radio side of ESPN I find to be even more excruciatingly unbearable than the TV side. From 6am to 2pm the stupidity of the hosts makes listening feel like butter knives twisting in your eardrums.
 
SignGuyDino

SignGuyDino

SatelliteGuys Family
Mar 7, 2004
116
0
Fletcher, NC
It is always in espn's interest to ignore or run down anything sports related it doesn't broadcast.

Versus won't be a major player unless they get serious parts of major sports programming, or start showing some programming of rugby league or union, and other sports programming. Spike had some not-bad numbers for NRL playoff games and that was with little notice. HD picture was incredible.

I mean, seriously, bull riding? I can see fishing shows on any regional sports network, too.

The main thing I hate about espn is how politically-correct it is. Remember how commentators partially defended Ron Artest for jumping in the crowd when he was hit with a drink, and about 5 minutes later they were all against him? Despite all the bluster of the personalities, when it comes to social issues, do not dare say the non-PC thing. Take the example of how Mike Leach got railroaded out of Texas Tech because Craig James didn't like how Leach treated his drama queen son on the football team, and how incredibly one-sided espn's coverage was.

In fact, I'm tired of social issues being discussed every 5 seconds. Why can't sports just be an escape from the "real world" once in a while?

The only thing that will cause change won't be the threat of competition, but the existance of it.
 
SignGuyDino

SignGuyDino

SatelliteGuys Family
Mar 7, 2004
116
0
Fletcher, NC
The radio side of ESPN I find to be even more excruciatingly unbearable than the TV side. From 6am to 2pm the stupidity of the hosts makes listening feel like butter knives twisting in your eardrums.

I actually was listening in the Raleigh/Durham area on espnradio at 1:00 a.m. a few months ago. Heard Bob Valvano (yes, that one) talk detailed on how if the Big 12 imploded how it would change college athletics. Talked about how many sports would have sport-specific conferences like hockey and how college fans value the program's traditions more than the individual players. Really detailed stuff that's over the head from most of the sheeple watching sports today.
 
T

TMC1982

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 26, 2008
206
2
The basic problems with ESPN these days if you ask me, is that number one, without a strong rival or competitor (Versus is not quite there yet, Fox Sports Net is really more of collection of regional sports nets than a strongly concentrated entity, and Turner already tried and failed with CNN/SI), they'll continue to rest on their laurels so to speak. The same sort of thing happened to World Wrestling Entertainment when World Championship Wrestling and Extreme Championship Wrestling went under in the year 2001. Also, ESPN seems more interested in being a "brand name"/marketing machine (a la Coca-Cola) than a viable journalistic source. In a way This is partially why I believe that if ESPN doesn't have a contract with your league (like the NHL at the moment), it's not going to get much press or exposure. This has become even more apparent when Disney came into the fold. ESPN is more interested in being the news and being in bed with pop culture than reporting it. In a way, it's arguable that ESPN has turned into the Fox News (where larger than life personalities, frequently delving into sensationalism, and carving your own personal ends/means take prescience more than anything) and/or MTV of sports television.

And speaking of how Disney helped ruin ESPN:
ESPN: A Requiem in Five Parts
 
M

Mets82

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 5, 2008
2,322
7
conn.
I think all of your opinions are right. Look, ESPN does a great job with College Basketball and College Football. As far as the NBA, I dont watch the NBA so I cant tell you about that. I might be in the minority here but I think showing the Womens Tourney is a great thing for the the womens game to get exposure.

With that being said, I've noticed on a couple of posts people saying that MLB Network has MLB highlights, NFL Network has NFL Highlights etc. so Sportscenter has become passe. I think thats what ESPN WANTS YOU to believe. There thinking is that why should we have extensive highlights when you can get your highlights somewhere else. I think thats a give up attitude on there part. I mean with the competition like NBA TV, MLB Network, NFL Network and NHL Network and the Big Ten Network plus the internet, blogs, tweets etc. you would think ESPN would work even harder to keep there audience. I mean I know there the big dogs and can do what they want but if there was real competition, like Versus or Fox or something like that you would see how fast they would change there toon.
 
Top