OT: Chris Berman Leaving E$ECPN?

[Fly1]

Never could stand Berman. His "whoop" crap he would do was so **** annoying. ESPN needs to clean house....Stephen A Smith, Skip Bayless, Jemele Hill, and Berman. ESPN has really fallen by the wayside.

 

[ajkreider]

I'm guessing the haters one here are, what, under 40?

Cuz anyone older than that has a shot of remembering the sports desert landscape that was TV prior to 1980. And the absolute salvation that the Berman-led ESPN was to that. Yeah, he's lost the plot for the last few years. But you probably can't tell a decent sports history of the last 50 years without discussing his important and beneficial place in it.

I will remember him and his early ESPN (Chris Fowler's SSA, Bob Ley, Roy freakin' Firestone) fondly.

 

[Gatorhater]

Let's face it, sports, especially college football, without THE U in play is just boring. The lower numbers of Canes in NFL as our great retire is having negative impact there also. We save college football. Without us it is boring and suffering a slow death by going back to teams limited to their own fans.

 

[ThomasM]

I lived for years without ESPN, and I think ESPN has hurt sports. Everyone wants to be on a highlight reel. Too much talk, too many highlights, and not enough real sports.

I'm guessing the haters one here are, what, under 40?

Cuz anyone older than that has a shot of remembering the sports desert landscape that was TV prior to 1980. And the absolute salvation that the Berman-led ESPN was to that. Yeah, he's lost the plot for the last few years. But you probably can't tell a decent sports history of the last 50 years without discussing his important and beneficial place in it.

I will remember him and his early ESPN (Chris Fowler's SSA, Bob Ley, Roy freakin' Firestone) fondly.

 

[Samson Doyo]

ESPN has become a sports tabloid show. Deflategate and that POS Shefter tweeting out JPP's hand injury details put me over the edge. I also hate Feinbaum & the SEC circle jerk that they produce and put on a loop. The other national networks should follow in Fox's footsteps and build out sports focused channels. "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of the woman."

Feinbaum sucks!

Go Canes!

 

[cowboycane]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/looks-another-one-espns-most-154837631.html

Yes, from our clueless "friends" at Yahoo.

You have to love this line:

"But Berman's history as a highlights personality would not seem to fit with the direction of most sports networks as they move more toward debate and commentary."

Of course they are moving to the "Embrace Debate" model, because it is CHEAP!! E$ECPN shot itself in the foot by overpaying for rights fees...fees they pay to their own competition! Berman does the NFL Draft, but so does NFL Network! Heck NFL Network's .com site covers College Football too. Couple that with rampant cord cutting (consumers have figured out E$ECPN is the costly channel and if they don't like sports, away the cord goes), the relative staleness of what they overpaid for recently (21st Century NASCAR, the soft fix NBA, MLB, Longhorn Network) and you have a recipe that blows holes in your business model. Bristol is hemoraging cash and getting rid of Berman doesn't help much in keeping The Mouse from ordering more firings at the suit level.

Eventually, E$ECPN may need to bring George Grande back just to talk, Stephen A. and Skip style, to about the same number of viewers in 1979.

The cord cutting piece is overblown. They are still the #1 cable net with a bullet in the ad demo and with overall viewers, and they are going to keep seeing increased sub fees because they are "must carry". Definitely a little bit of turbulence, but that is secular. ESPN's bigger problem is failing to keep up with changing consumer behavior. They keep plunging money into trying to return the network to its mid-90s prime by revamping Sportscenter, a format which is now irrelevant.

The sports rights are expensive but actually the only thing keeping them as a "must have" channel so they have to keep paying for them, although I agree, they inlfated the prices and are now reaping the whirlwind.

They are smart to purge some of this overpriced talent like Berman who are really just remnants of the past. They ****ed up when they got rid of Simmons...love him or hate him, the guy is a draw for millenials (aka the cord cutters everyone is panicky about), and HBO recognized that immediately. It's a microcosm of where ESPN's leadership team is...stuck in the past, when the brand was big enough to self sustain.

Just my two cents, obviously. I love talking about this ****, I work in TV Research in LA and this is what I eat, sleep and breathe.

 

[cowboycane]

Now if someone in Bristol would just realize that Kornheiser and Wilbon are worth about 1/10th of their salaries. And that 1/10th is only legitimized by the fact that the morons and and token women that fill Around the Horn prior to them somehow actually draw a salary.

Show still rates for them, and all their other stuff has proven that you can't just plug in the intern and make the debate format work. Fox Sports 1 would double their salaries tomorrow if they got the shot, I imagine, so essentially they're worth what the market says they're worth.

 

[Tad Footeball]

Now if someone in Bristol would just realize that Kornheiser and Wilbon are worth about 1/10th of their salaries. And that 1/10th is only legitimized by the fact that the morons and and token women that fill Around the Horn prior to them somehow actually draw a salary.

Show still rates for them, and all their other stuff has proven that you can't just plug in the intern and make the debate format work. Fox Sports 1 would double their salaries tomorrow if they got the shot, I imagine, so essentially they're worth what the market says they're worth.

I dunno. Was Cowherd worth his salary at FS1? Was Simmons worth his salary at ESPN? I agree that PTI gets ratings but I'm not sure that now has anything to do with more than familiarity, timeslot and complete lack of a real alternative. I bet if you swapped out Kornheiser and Wilbon with let's say a Van Pelt and a minority or a woman that you'd have the same ratings within a very short period of time and no blowback for replacing the show with 2 white dudes (although Kornheiser is as white as they come and Wilbon acts as old).

 

[CaneFan79]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/looks-another-one-espns-most-154837631.html

Yes, from our clueless "friends" at Yahoo.

You have to love this line:

"But Berman's history as a highlights personality would not seem to fit with the direction of most sports networks as they move more toward debate and commentary."

Of course they are moving to the "Embrace Debate" model, because it is CHEAP!! E$ECPN shot itself in the foot by overpaying for rights fees...fees they pay to their own competition! Berman does the NFL Draft, but so does NFL Network! Heck NFL Network's .com site covers College Football too. Couple that with rampant cord cutting (consumers have figured out E$ECPN is the costly channel and if they don't like sports, away the cord goes), the relative staleness of what they overpaid for recently (21st Century NASCAR, the soft fix NBA, MLB, Longhorn Network) and you have a recipe that blows holes in your business model. Bristol is hemoraging cash and getting rid of Berman doesn't help much in keeping The Mouse from ordering more firings at the suit level.

Eventually, E$ECPN may need to bring George Grande back just to talk, Stephen A. and Skip style, to about the same number of viewers in 1979.

The cord cutting piece is overblown. They are still the [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] cable net with a bullet in the ad demo and with overall viewers, and they are going to keep seeing increased sub fees because they are "must carry". Definitely a little bit of turbulence, but that is secular. ESPN's bigger problem is failing to keep up with changing consumer behavior. They keep plunging money into trying to return the network to its mid-90s prime by revamping Sportscenter, a format which is now irrelevant.

The sports rights are expensive but actually the only thing keeping them as a "must have" channel so they have to keep paying for them, although I agree, they inlfated the prices and are now reaping the whirlwind.

They are smart to purge some of this overpriced talent like Berman who are really just remnants of the past. They ****ed up when they got rid of Simmons...love him or hate him, the guy is a draw for millenials (aka the cord cutters everyone is panicky about), and HBO recognized that immediately. It's a microcosm of where ESPN's leadership team is...stuck in the past, when the brand was big enough to self sustain.


Just my two cents, obviously. I love talking about this ****, I work in TV Research in LA and this is what I eat, sleep and breathe.

Great comments, but the trend in cable is on the the downslope...Soon it will be less than 50%:

Cable TV: Cord Cutting Statistics - 2016

When do other live sports providers go NFL Network one better and control their content from cradle to grave? Can ESPN survive of commentary alone, forget their subscriber fees and #1 Cable position.

 

[cowboycane]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/looks-another-one-espns-most-154837631.html

Yes, from our clueless "friends" at Yahoo.

You have to love this line:

"But Berman's history as a highlights personality would not seem to fit with the direction of most sports networks as they move more toward debate and commentary."

Of course they are moving to the "Embrace Debate" model, because it is CHEAP!! E$ECPN shot itself in the foot by overpaying for rights fees...fees they pay to their own competition! Berman does the NFL Draft, but so does NFL Network! Heck NFL Network's .com site covers College Football too. Couple that with rampant cord cutting (consumers have figured out E$ECPN is the costly channel and if they don't like sports, away the cord goes), the relative staleness of what they overpaid for recently (21st Century NASCAR, the soft fix NBA, MLB, Longhorn Network) and you have a recipe that blows holes in your business model. Bristol is hemoraging cash and getting rid of Berman doesn't help much in keeping The Mouse from ordering more firings at the suit level.

Eventually, E$ECPN may need to bring George Grande back just to talk, Stephen A. and Skip style, to about the same number of viewers in 1979.

The cord cutting piece is overblown. They are still the [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] cable net with a bullet in the ad demo and with overall viewers, and they are going to keep seeing increased sub fees because they are "must carry". Definitely a little bit of turbulence, but that is secular. ESPN's bigger problem is failing to keep up with changing consumer behavior. They keep plunging money into trying to return the network to its mid-90s prime by revamping Sportscenter, a format which is now irrelevant.

The sports rights are expensive but actually the only thing keeping them as a "must have" channel so they have to keep paying for them, although I agree, they inlfated the prices and are now reaping the whirlwind.

They are smart to purge some of this overpriced talent like Berman who are really just remnants of the past. They ****ed up when they got rid of Simmons...love him or hate him, the guy is a draw for millenials (aka the cord cutters everyone is panicky about), and HBO recognized that immediately. It's a microcosm of where ESPN's leadership team is...stuck in the past, when the brand was big enough to self sustain.


Just my two cents, obviously. I love talking about this ****, I work in TV Research in LA and this is what I eat, sleep and breathe.

Great comments, but the trend in cable is on the the downslope...Soon it will be less than 50%:

Cable TV: Cord Cutting Statistics - 2016

When do other live sports providers go NFL Network one better and control their content from cradle to grave? Can ESPN survive of commentary alone, forget their subscriber fees and #1 Cable position.

I think ESPN serves the role of sports aggregator pretty well, and for the time being that in and of itself is a pretty massive hole in the cord-cutting picture.

Also, because ESPN is willing to fork out huge license fees, they remain a big piece of the revenue puzzle for these sports leagues. The bet for the leagues going cradle to grave is that the increase in sub fees and advertising together can replace ESPN's billions in license fees. Maybe, maybe not....but will NFL Network generate more than $1.1 billion in revenue per year off of their mediocre Monday night package if they take the rights back from ESPN?

I saw that EMarketer study too. Based on those numbers, even in 2019 there will still be more than 96 million pay TV homes. 83% of TV households.I agree, cord cutting is not to be passed off as a fad, but it's still relatively nibbling at the edges.

 

[Billy D Williams]

I don't watch much pre-game or sports center programming anymore. Too much blah, blah, blah BS! Start the game already.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/looks-another-one-espns-most-154837631.html

Yes, from our clueless "friends" at Yahoo.

You have to love this line:

"But Berman's history as a highlights personality would not seem to fit with the direction of most sports networks as they move more toward debate and commentary."

Of course they are moving to the "Embrace Debate" model, because it is CHEAP!! E$ECPN shot itself in the foot by overpaying for rights fees...fees they pay to their own competition! Berman does the NFL Draft, but so does NFL Network! Heck NFL Network's .com site covers College Football too. Couple that with rampant cord cutting (consumers have figured out E$ECPN is the costly channel and if they don't like sports, away the cord goes), the relative staleness of what they overpaid for recently (21st Century NASCAR, the soft fix NBA, MLB, Longhorn Network) and you have a recipe that blows holes in your business model. Bristol is hemoraging cash and getting rid of Berman doesn't help much in keeping The Mouse from ordering more firings at the suit level.

Eventually, E$ECPN may need to bring George Grande back just to talk, Stephen A. and Skip style, to about the same number of viewers in 1979.

The cord cutting piece is overblown. They are still the #1 cable net with a bullet in the ad demo and with overall viewers, and they are going to keep seeing increased sub fees because they are "must carry". Definitely a little bit of turbulence, but that is secular. ESPN's bigger problem is failing to keep up with changing consumer behavior. They keep plunging money into trying to return the network to its mid-90s prime by revamping Sportscenter, a format which is now irrelevant.

The sports rights are expensive but actually the only thing keeping them as a "must have" channel so they have to keep paying for them, although I agree, they inlfated the prices and are now reaping the whirlwind.

They are smart to purge some of this overpriced talent like Berman who are really just remnants of the past. They ****ed up when they got rid of Simmons...love him or hate him, the guy is a draw for millenials (aka the cord cutters everyone is panicky about), and HBO recognized that immediately. It's a microcosm of where ESPN's leadership team is...stuck in the past, when the brand was big enough to self sustain.

Just my two cents, obviously. I love talking about this ****, I work in TV Research in LA and this is what I eat, sleep and breathe.

I would look into what factor ESPN and its subscription losses have played in an almost 30% Disney's stock slide.

Your analysis is narrow and doesn't take into account the factor that trumps everything: contribution to stock price and projected future growth. When Wall Street votes your shares down because of ESPN, you can **** well expect many more changes, some drastic. You're also dead wrong on the cord cutting. It's a huge issue. Wall Street says so. That's all that counts

 

[CaneFan79]

How long is ESPN, or in reality Disney (as OriginalCanesCanesCanes pointed out) be able to fork out those huge fees? Will newly formed Charter Spectrum lead a charge to reduce sub fees?

Here is something interesting from the WSJ:

At Disney, Focus on Shanghai, Corporate Succession and Skinny Bundles - WSJ

"-ESPN AND CABLE BUNDLES: Due largely to the timing of sporting events, advertising revenue may be down significantly at the sports network, predicted Nomura analyst Anthony DiClemente. But the bigger question for (Disney) shareholders, as it has been since last year, is subscriber numbers, affiliate-fee revenue growth and the impact of inexpensive “skinny bundles” on Disney’s largest business: television."

 

[cowboycane]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/looks-another-one-espns-most-154837631.html

Yes, from our clueless "friends" at Yahoo.

You have to love this line:

"But Berman's history as a highlights personality would not seem to fit with the direction of most sports networks as they move more toward debate and commentary."

Of course they are moving to the "Embrace Debate" model, because it is CHEAP!! E$ECPN shot itself in the foot by overpaying for rights fees...fees they pay to their own competition! Berman does the NFL Draft, but so does NFL Network! Heck NFL Network's .com site covers College Football too. Couple that with rampant cord cutting (consumers have figured out E$ECPN is the costly channel and if they don't like sports, away the cord goes), the relative staleness of what they overpaid for recently (21st Century NASCAR, the soft fix NBA, MLB, Longhorn Network) and you have a recipe that blows holes in your business model. Bristol is hemoraging cash and getting rid of Berman doesn't help much in keeping The Mouse from ordering more firings at the suit level.

Eventually, E$ECPN may need to bring George Grande back just to talk, Stephen A. and Skip style, to about the same number of viewers in 1979.

The cord cutting piece is overblown. They are still the #1 cable net with a bullet in the ad demo and with overall viewers, and they are going to keep seeing increased sub fees because they are "must carry". Definitely a little bit of turbulence, but that is secular. ESPN's bigger problem is failing to keep up with changing consumer behavior. They keep plunging money into trying to return the network to its mid-90s prime by revamping Sportscenter, a format which is now irrelevant.

The sports rights are expensive but actually the only thing keeping them as a "must have" channel so they have to keep paying for them, although I agree, they inlfated the prices and are now reaping the whirlwind.

They are smart to purge some of this overpriced talent like Berman who are really just remnants of the past. They ****ed up when they got rid of Simmons...love him or hate him, the guy is a draw for millenials (aka the cord cutters everyone is panicky about), and HBO recognized that immediately. It's a microcosm of where ESPN's leadership team is...stuck in the past, when the brand was big enough to self sustain.

Just my two cents, obviously. I love talking about this ****, I work in TV Research in LA and this is what I eat, sleep and breathe.

I would look into what factor ESPN and its subscription losses have played in an almost 30% Disney's stock slide.

Your analysis is narrow and doesn't take into account the factor that trumps everything: contribution to stock price and projected future growth. When Wall Street votes your shares down because of ESPN, you can **** well expect many more changes, some drastic. You're also dead wrong on the cord cutting. It's a huge issue. Wall Street says so. That's all that counts

I'm aware of the ESPN impact on the Disney stock price, and I am aware that Wall Street is all that matters. I think Wall Street is panicky right now Because ESPN hasn't done a good job of responding to the changes. I am by no means a fan of the current ESPN strategy, and I wouldn't buy Disney stock right now. But I think ESPN is going to remain viable long term because I think they will eventually shake up their management and come up with a good OTT play to capture some of the subs they are currently dropping. I also think that the millenials cutting the cord are going to start to view cable the same way people view buying a nice car or a house...a luxury good that you purchase a bit later on in life, say their mid-30s...but eventually they will be back in the game. Additionally, sub losses already decelerated in Q4-15 and Q1-16, so it's not like it's a mass exodus.

I guess at the end of the day I'm just more bull-ish on their long term prospects than you. Disney doesn't **** around.

That said, I understand completely where you're coming from.

 

[cowboycane]

How long is ESPN, or in reality Disney (as OriginalCanesCanesCanes pointed out) be able to fork out those huge fees? Will newly formed Charter Spectrum lead a charge to reduce sub fees?

Here is something interesting from the WSJ:

At Disney, Focus on Shanghai, Corporate Succession and Skinny Bundles - WSJ

"-ESPN AND CABLE BUNDLES: Due largely to the timing of sporting events, advertising revenue may be down significantly at the sports network, predicted Nomura analyst Anthony DiClemente. But the bigger question for (Disney) shareholders, as it has been since last year, is subscriber numbers, affiliate-fee revenue growth and the impact of inexpensive “skinny bundles” on Disney’s largest business: television."

It's a great question but I still think ESPN has them tied up until there is a viable alternative, which isn't on the immediate horizon.

It goes back to a post you had earlier....you can only reduce sub fees on ESPN once all the major sports packages go in-house or to a competitor. Otherwise, while ESPN still has those rights long term they still have the leverage. Spectrum can't drop them without losing 15-20% of their subs, and I don't see all the major MSO's acting collectively to collude against Disney.

Would be very interesting to watch if I'm wrong though, certainly would love to grab dinner with my buddy who works over there during that standoff.

Great back and forth, appreciate you and OriginalCCC.

 

[CaneFan79]

How long is ESPN, or in reality Disney (as OriginalCanesCanesCanes pointed out) be able to fork out those huge fees? Will newly formed Charter Spectrum lead a charge to reduce sub fees?

Here is something interesting from the WSJ:

At Disney, Focus on Shanghai, Corporate Succession and Skinny Bundles - WSJ

"-ESPN AND CABLE BUNDLES: Due largely to the timing of sporting events, advertising revenue may be down significantly at the sports network, predicted Nomura analyst Anthony DiClemente. But the bigger question for (Disney) shareholders, as it has been since last year, is subscriber numbers, affiliate-fee revenue growth and the impact of inexpensive “skinny bundles” on Disney’s largest business: television."

It's a great question but I still think ESPN has them tied up until there is a viable alternative, which isn't on the immediate horizon.

It goes back to a post you had earlier....you can only reduce sub fees on ESPN once all the major sports packages go in-house or to a competitor. Otherwise, while ESPN still has those rights long term they still have the leverage. Spectrum can't drop them without losing 15-20% of their subs, and I don't see all the major MSO's acting collectively to collude against Disney.

Would be very interesting to watch if I'm wrong though, certainly would love to grab dinner with my buddy who works over there during that standoff.

Great back and forth, appreciate you and OriginalCCC.

Appreciate your knowledge and passion also.

 

[AUcane]

One of the worst to lace 'em up

 

[omaha]

At 24 I got tired of ESPN. Busy and a little wiser and the show started bringing in more jokes. And is anything more annoying than trying to watch a clip highlight of a game and then some talking head gives me opinions with no highlight. Who asked for this no names opinion on the play or game or players?

PTI was genius and deserved the money for the first few years. Cowherd deserves every penny he gets. The jokes that are the JV basketball player and mr You don't want to make an enemy out of me just never connected with me and I never understood their appeal. Same with Mike Golic. Just a meat head. Berman I have not watched since 1995

 

[HulkaCaniac]

I'm guessing the haters one here are, what, under 40?

Cuz anyone older than that has a shot of remembering the sports desert landscape that was TV prior to 1980. And the absolute salvation that the Berman-led ESPN was to that. Yeah, he's lost the plot for the last few years. But you probably can't tell a decent sports history of the last 50 years without discussing his important and beneficial place in it.

I will remember him and his early ESPN (Chris Fowler's SSA, Bob Ley, Roy freakin' Firestone) fondly.

You're dumb.

 

[Jeeperaf]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/looks-another-one-espns-most-154837631.html

Yes, from our clueless "friends" at Yahoo.

You have to love this line:

"But Berman's history as a highlights personality would not seem to fit with the direction of most sports networks as they move more toward debate and commentary."

Of course they are moving to the "Embrace Debate" model, because it is CHEAP!! E$ECPN shot itself in the foot by overpaying for rights fees...fees they pay to their own competition! Berman does the NFL Draft, but so does NFL Network! Heck NFL Network's .com site covers College Football too. Couple that with rampant cord cutting (consumers have figured out E$ECPN is the costly channel and if they don't like sports, away the cord goes), the relative staleness of what they overpaid for recently (21st Century NASCAR, the soft fix NBA, MLB, Longhorn Network) and you have a recipe that blows holes in your business model. Bristol is hemoraging cash and getting rid of Berman doesn't help much in keeping The Mouse from ordering more firings at the suit level.

Eventually, E$ECPN may need to bring George Grande back just to talk, Stephen A. and Skip style, to about the same number of viewers in 1979.

The cord cutting piece is overblown. They are still the #1 cable net with a bullet in the ad demo and with overall viewers, and they are going to keep seeing increased sub fees because they are "must carry". Definitely a little bit of turbulence, but that is secular. ESPN's bigger problem is failing to keep up with changing consumer behavior. They keep plunging money into trying to return the network to its mid-90s prime by revamping Sportscenter, a format which is now irrelevant.

The sports rights are expensive but actually the only thing keeping them as a "must have" channel so they have to keep paying for them, although I agree, they inlfated the prices and are now reaping the whirlwind.

They are smart to purge some of this overpriced talent like Berman who are really just remnants of the past. They ****ed up when they got rid of Simmons...love him or hate him, the guy is a draw for millenials (aka the cord cutters everyone is panicky about), and HBO recognized that immediately. It's a microcosm of where ESPN's leadership team is...stuck in the past, when the brand was big enough to self sustain.

Just my two cents, obviously. I love talking about this ****, I work in TV Research in LA and this is what I eat, sleep and breathe.

Interesting. Do you think "cord cutting" is a legitimate threat to SEC Network? To Longhorn Network? With cord cutting, how do the viewers get their content?