Michelle Wie is six shots back at the LPGA Championship (trailing Morgan Pressel), tied for 14th with nine other people, and ESPN is pimping her as a "Must See" because she is "Making Some Noise with a 68".
ESPN Is Pathetic
- Thread starter Lose Remerswaal
- Start date
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
drleather2001 said:
Wait a sec. I loved "Stump the Schwab" as much as the rest of you, but that was years ago. What was he providing to ESPN recently? How was he not extra baggage?
Sometimes some culling makes sense.
Lose Remerswaal said:
Stump the Schwab barely scratched the surface of what he did for ESPN. He was their lead researcher forever (he was there 26 years). Hell, he was the research department for a long time. He was the guy fleshing out stories and reports with the obscure stat or reference before anyone else was doing it.
Granted, he was getting older and probably is headed toward retirement anyway, but I think his being let go is emblematic of the decline of ESPN. From a Deadspin article, there's this story...
From the same article, more people than just Schwab were let go from the research department. ESPN decided that the people that make sure everything is accurate and informative meant less than the people that "entertain". Fire 10 people whose only job is to make sure facts are correct rather than fire one guy for whom facts just get in the way (like Skip Bayless).
Thanks for the info on Schwab. Not sure that 16/9 seed story means much beyond that numbers were obviously holy to him, and without knowing the staffing and output of the research department I'm not sure I'm qualified to say whether or not ESPN is justified in laying anyone off or not.
This is what public (and private) companies do, all the time.
This is what public (and private) companies do, all the time.
That was a microcosm of the argument. It does matter that it's a 16-9 seeds playing, just as it matters the records of the Blue Jays and Orioles or when a 15 seed faces off against the 2 seed in the NCCA. Schwab's point is that the record does matter in sports, above all else, the record lets someone understand just how good that person or that team is. Taking that record or the seeding off the marquee removes a big piece of information.
Why were the regular season Red Sox/Yankees games so important 10 years ago? Because they were the first and second-best teams in the league. You strip that away from them and it's just another game between two pretty good teams. ESPN is trying to drive the storylines rather than report the storylines and that's a big problem for a news organization, or one that pretends to be one. I'm not a huge stat guy, but without stats sports is just a bunch of assholes with tremendous hand-eye-coordination running around on grass.
But is Schwab unique in that? Can nobody else replicate that? He's old and expensive. ESPN needed to trim fat. These people are usually the first to go.John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
True, but this is really a symbolic passing of the torch in Bristol. I worked w/Schwabie for 10 years and he's a great guy and big part of what built (the good) part of the sports culture there. The ESPN of stats, information and context is largely gone and it's been replaced by the sports equivalent of FOX News. What used to be a go to source for actual info, the info that people like Schwab (and Dave Pinto and many others I could name) work hard to actually check and get right, has been replaced by Stephen A. Smith blathering on and on about LeBron and Tebow. It's a totally different animal now. And this is the reason why.kenneycb said:
EDIT: The title of this thread is ESPN is pathetic. How did it get that way? Keeping firing dudes like Schawb and bingo.
No, I don't think he's unique. But it sounds like he's very good at his job, don't you want to keep people that are good at their job? Isn't it better to have a guy like Schwab than $125M SportsCenter set? Isn't the point of ESPN's SC the scores and highlights of the game*, who gives a shit if they sit behind an overtunred cardboard box.
* I understand completely that SC has gone so far beyond highlights and scores but I think that they have lost their way and it's the reason why I don't watch it anymore.
I don't work in a research department but I would think that you'd like to keep one if not a handful of older guys around so that when the new people come in they aren't reinventing the wheel.
SC is most definitely not about scores and highlights anymore and it's been that way for a while.John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
It is about opinion, bar room arguments and topics that move the ratings needle. It's topical and opinion based, not scores and facts based. Which is why they don't need Schwab anymore.
Such as when deciding who to fire. As is age. I'm still not sure if you're making a point or anything.E5 Yaz said:
kenneycb said:
As to age, when you're on the other side of 52, that doesn't seem so old
As to expensive, you'd like to think that overpaying for lack of ability is more expensive than paying market value for someone who still produces at a level of quality.
These are the issues that hit home for those of us to whom 52 is not old.
I would like to know whether Disney/ABC/ESPN has a "rule of 80" or some such similar status. Many companies combine age plus years of service as a point where the full pension can be taken. Looks as though Schwab's number was at 78 when he was canned.
Finally, I wonder how many former ESPN employees will wind up at the FOX SPORTS ONE Network
I realize that. But there still needs to be facts, right?
At the end of the day, it sucks but I don't watch ESPN very much any more and this is one of the reasons why. I'm not sure exactly who they're marketing to, because I think that a majority of sportsfans want scores, highlights and news along with some opinion. But I'm sure ESPN has the market research to prove that people love Screamin' A. Smith yelling about Joe Flacco not being an elite quarterback and I'm really happy that I don't know any of these people.
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Even if the bolded statement is true (that fans mostly just want scores, highlights, and news), what most certainly isn't true is that want to get those scores, highlights, and news from an hour long highlights show. SportsCenter had to change, because the internet largely made it irrelevant. Nobody sits down and watches a sports highlight show to find out what happened the previous night anymore. Instead, they already know what happened the previous night, because they were following everything in real time on the internet.
None of this is to excuse ESPN's continued attempts to create stories instead of reporting them (I think Shwab was completely right to be livid about the failure to report the seeds in order to increase interest), but if you think that SportsCenter is bad today because they don't simply provide highlights and news like they did in the 90s, then you're missing the fact that SportsCenter as we knew it in the 90s would be the most irrelevant show on TV today (having said that, its still largely irrelevant today anyway, but that's just because its bad, not because they got away from scores and highlights).
I'm not sure if I agree with you. If no one watches high light shows why do the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL networks and Fox Soccer run daily highlight shows? Why do NESN and ComcastNE run highlight shows? You can't watch every single game, every single night. And not everyone has the time to follow everything that happened the previous night, if I'm on a business trip and I'm taking clients out or if I'm out with my wife or watching a movie, I'm not paying attention to the Sox game (and that's my favorite team) never mind the Dodgers or Padres. I guess I could hunt for the highlights on the web or check my phone for scores, but sometimes I just want to watch TV and have it spoonfed to me. Maybe that's just me, I don't know.
And I never said that SportsCenter is bad today simply because they don't report the scores and highlights. It's one of the reasons why *I* don't watch it (there's a ton of other reasons, but they're pedestrian and you've probably seen them before when others talk about this), but I'm probably not in their target demographic any more. To be truthful, I don't give a shit because I can go to one of the league channels to get the highlights that I want and move along with my day happy that I don't have to see Linda Cohn try to be funny.
The fact is this, ESPN is a great way for Disney to get to a captive male audience and despite a bunch of layoffs they are still making a ton of cash, so someone is doing something correct.
Edit: Orel, I don't think that you're getting what I'm saying. I don't care that SC is a shell of itself and I'm not demanding a 90s version of SC -- things evolve. But at the same time, it doesn't have to be an hour of bullshit every single day. You can learn something and have it be entertaining at the same time -- that's my point. And you can't be educational if your fact checker gets kicked to the curb over a change in paradigms.
This apparently is worthy of headline news on espn
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/9407046/joe-torre-daughter-catches-baby-falling-2nd-floor
I mean.... Really?
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/9407046/joe-torre-daughter-catches-baby-falling-2nd-floor
I mean.... Really?
From the above comment section:
Mark Sanchez actually tried throwing the baby to Joe Torre's daughter's friend, but the daughter was able to intercept it.
I'm getting tired of all the stories involving family of Hall-of-Fame managers catching falling babies.
Mark Sanchez actually tried throwing the baby to Joe Torre's daughter's friend, but the daughter was able to intercept it.
I'm getting tired of all the stories involving family of Hall-of-Fame managers catching falling babies.
Torre's daughter's headband came off and Tebow caught the headband while Kobe took it to Germany with him.
Clicking on the Schwab story I get a pop up ad to read the article "What does Lebron look like, without his headband?" Why do I think ESPN is involved in that somehow?
Obviously ESPN has the right to terminate whoever they want, but I hate this kind of crap. Schwab helped build that company with his work in research and by letting him go at 52, they make it virtually impossible for him to find work at the level and salary he was making for the company. And let's be honest, ESPN didn't need to trim "fat", they aren't losing money, their corporate overlords at Disney want to squeeze more profit out of every division and they believe the people don't matter. Someone else will take the job, you will see a loss of valuable institutional knowledge and more screwups like the ones shown in this thread, but Disney figures they've got their core audience by the nads and won't do anything about it. It's like what someone said in the thread about Microsoft and the XBox one. ESPN is confusing a captive audience with a loyal one.kenneycb said:
You could say the exact same thing about George Zimmer, just replace "ESPN" with "Men's Wearhouse". It's not personal, it's just business. You understand.
My problem with moves like this is that the "fat" isn't guys like Schwab compared to their pre game shows and draft shows and the like where they seemingly have at least 6 guys and up to 10-12 guys chiming in. The on-air talent makes more than guys like Schwab and they have way too many of those guys. You're telling me that Cris Carter is more valuable to ESPN than Schwab, especially at their respective salaries? I find that hard to believe.
No you couldn't say the same thing. Zimmer is basically a logo, an advertisement for the business. The brand isn't working, he's not bringing in any business. This is his job and he's failing so he gets replaced or updated. It's why Catherine Zeta Jones isn't on T-Mobile ads anymore or why the Burger King King is absent from BK commercials. From all accounts, Schwab was doing his job correctly; his employer wanted to meet numbers and instead of firing the 50 different analysts they have for the NBA and NFL, they canned him.
Completely different.
How do we know Schwab hasn't been mailing it in? Or regressed in some way? There's only one side of the story: his.
I live close to Bristol, and know multiple people that work there. Just this week I was talking with someone about the layoffs (and on the tech side he was heavily involved, if not leading parts of the 3D stuff - which was canned), and he wasn't concerned. For example, they are still swimming with cash. Also, ESPN hasn't exactly had tons of layoffs in their history. So, a lot of the people, as it usually is with layoffs when it's not a crisis situation, are the poor performers, the people that were going to retire soon, basically, the people that should have been gone a long time ago. If they start letting go of the good people, that's when you know there are issues.
I live close to Bristol, and know multiple people that work there. Just this week I was talking with someone about the layoffs (and on the tech side he was heavily involved, if not leading parts of the 3D stuff - which was canned), and he wasn't concerned. For example, they are still swimming with cash. Also, ESPN hasn't exactly had tons of layoffs in their history. So, a lot of the people, as it usually is with layoffs when it's not a crisis situation, are the poor performers, the people that were going to retire soon, basically, the people that should have been gone a long time ago. If they start letting go of the good people, that's when you know there are issues.
That's certainly true. And if he is, I'm not going to know about it, but it seems to me that if you've been employed at one place for 26 and have been in a high-profile position you're not punching in at 8:30, taking a two-hour lunch and then hopping on the Levi's Express (the 5:01) out of Bristol.
Judging from the way that ESPN has tailored it's product, it seems to me that the network chiefs have decided to promote the E in ESPN and have it center around entertaining rather than informing people. Which is totally and completely fine, there are scores of other places that I can go for information. And the channel is not beholden to fulfill my needs and it seems that they have made a decision that people want yelling debates. But since ESPN is so ubiquitous and did a pretty good job of covering the entirity of the sports world, it kind of sucks that I have to look around again. I mean, it's easier than it was in the late 80s/early 90s, but I'm a lazy dude.
It just seems odd to me that they will make a new SportsCenter set, hire dozens and dozens of analysts but when they "trim the fat" it's the little guy that gets the axe. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a useless analyst; Mike Ditka? Magic Johnson? What do they bring to the table? Do you watch NFL PrimeTime or CountDown because you can't wait to hear Cris Carter's latest hot sports take? Of course not. It's wasted money.
HillysLastWalk said:
Speaking as someone who got laid off last year the same day as receiving an "Exceeds Expectations" annual review for the 7th straight year, this just isn't true. Many companies are more than happy to save a buck any time they think they can get away with it.
Hendu for Kutch said:
My condolences. But yeah, that's why I threw in the usually. Though, I do agree, most corporations do view people as a number on a balance sheet. It's why I could never be loyal to any company, and I've mined my way though my career with that in mind.
To digress to JMOH's post ...
Totally agree about the useless analysts. Though, at ESPN, the on-air personalities are referred to as the 'talent'. When viewed through that lens, it must change the thinking in regards to firings and lay-offs (maybe?)
And totally agree about the E in ESPN. I don't ever watch ESPN anymore. Except for live sports. That's it. And I was someone that "grew up" watching Sportscenter (loved me some Craig Kilborn) and "Baseball Tonight" (loved me some Gammons notes back then). I'm really puzzled at who watches this dreck. I was just downstairs in the office kitchen, washing breakfast dishes, and ESPN was on in the background. It was one of those Screaming A shows, with the people babbling on and on and on ... all I could think was "who the fuck watches this shit? And who cares?" *Click* Then again, I've also given up sports talk radio too. Maybe I'm just old. I have too many things to concern myself with besides the 20th different person describing their feelings as to why the Heat won, or some psycho-babble about Lebron James.
I'm sure JMOH is right about focus groups responding well to First Take, and the same people who are going to a focus group for $50 in the middle of the day are probably the same schlubs watching First Take at 11 AM on a Wednesday. Hell, even employed people watch crap TV in the middle of the day, I know because there are some in my office.
Anyway. I just wish that ESPN would show Berman the same loyalty they showed Schwab (I almost typed that schowed Schwab. Was kind hard not to.)
Anyway. I just wish that ESPN would show Berman the same loyalty they showed Schwab (I almost typed that schowed Schwab. Was kind hard not to.)