ESPN Is Pathetic

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
3,721
The Short Bus
According to ESPN's QBR, Andy Dalton had a better game yesterday than Tom Brady.
QBR must vastly overrate running by the QB, as Dalton did outrush Brady (and had a TD). But also according to QBR:

Tyrod Taylor-17/26 for 179 yards, 2 tds, no ints, PLUS 8 carries for 68 yrds-QBR of 75.8
EJ Manuel-0/2 for 0 yards, plus 3 carries for 11 yards-QBR of 90.9

Does no one look at this and say "this doesnt work right"?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
ESPN loves coming up with overtly complicated stats and "Power Indexes" for all sports and plugging them on their various media outlets, especially The Mag. They must be the idea of a higher up because they are everywhere.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,088
QBR must vastly overrate running by the QB, as Dalton did outrush Brady (and had a TD). But also according to QBR:

Tyrod Taylor-17/26 for 179 yards, 2 tds, no ints, PLUS 8 carries for 68 yrds-QBR of 75.8
EJ Manuel-0/2 for 0 yards, plus 3 carries for 11 yards-QBR of 90.9

Does no one look at this and say "this doesnt work right"?
ESPN does not share how QBR is calculated which makes it an entirely useless metric to me.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
While sharing how it is calculated would make it more interesting what makes it useless are the ridiculous results it spits out as has been shown above.
A black box metric that spits out reasonable results, while not ideal, I wouldn't call useless.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
I like metrics that don't necessarily follow the CW; if they're measuring something you wouldn't normally notice or that other metrics don't capture, they can add a useful perspective. The problem with QBR is the black box -- nobody knows what it's measuring. That means that when it clashes with the CW or other metrics, it's impossible to figure out why, which means it's not adding any additional useful perspective.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,088
The problem with QBR is the black box -- nobody knows what it's measuring.
And because it is a black box it raises suspicion that they are changing criteria over time which further calls into question validity and usefulness of the metric.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
This is a week old now, but:

Fox Sports 1 Topped ESPN in Ratings Last Week For the First Time in Its History

For the first time since it launched in August 2013, Fox Sports 1 drew higher ratings than ESPN over an entire week. Sports TV Ratings reports that not only did FS1 beat the perennial market leader, it dominated them by a margin of 1.5 million total viewers in primetime, and nearly 400,000 in the advertiser coveted 18-49 demographic. That was enough to give the upstart network a 70,000 viewer victory in total ratings over ESPN. (Although ESPN did prevail by 53,000 viewers in the 18-49 demo.)



http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-sports-1-topped-espn-in-ratings-last-week-for-the-first-time-in-its-history/
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
And for more good news...

ESPN Loses 621,000 Subscribers; Worst Month In Company History

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-621-000-subscribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916
Lots of good info in that article

At 74 million subscribers -- Outkick's projection for 2021 based on the past five years of subscriber losses -- ESPN would be bringing in just over $6.2 billion a year in yearly subscriber fees at $7 a month. At $8 a month, assuming the subscriber costs per month keeps climbing, that's $7.1 billion in subscriber revenue. Both of those numbers are less than the yearly rights fees cost.

Uh oh.

It seems pretty clear that within five years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they've committed for sports rights.

Sure, advertising money and ESPN2 and ESPNU have to be factored in as well, but you'd also have to add in every other cost that ESPN has to run multiple networks, employee salaries, technology, everything that a major corporation with thousands of worldwide employees has to keep up. And, importantly, you also have to factor in this, ESPN's Monday Night Football contract expires at the end of 2021.
This is spot-on:

This is the biggest contract to watch in sports, will ESPN bend to economic reality or will Disney let the worldwide leader in sports spend money it doesn't have?

If the NFL isn't making the same money it always made in the past, everyone in sports is screwed.

I've been writing about the sports rights bubble for years. Most recently doing the math to point out that the NBA's insane new television deal from Turner and ESPN means that every single cable and satellite subscriber in the entire country is paying a jawdropping $30 a year for NBA games. I believe the NBA's TV contract represented the actual peak of the sports rights market.

I'm not against ESPN -- or certainly FS1 or NBCSN or CBSSN or any other sports cable channel -- I just see the collapse of the cable and satellite bundle as the biggest sports story that most in the sports industry are ignoring. When the bubble officially pops -- and it may well have already popped without most realizing it, check out the NFL ratings collapsing this fall -- it's going to change everything about sports -- team revenue and player salaries will plummet and the way that average fans consume sports will change rapidly.
I too am an acolyte of the notion that market pressures have pushed live event broadcasting rights (i.e. sports) into an insane bubble that is ripe for bursting. In a worst-case scenario all of the major leagues will have to go through major rounds of labor strife to correct payroll bloat. Out of everyone I definitely think ESPN and the NFL are the biggest, dumbest behemoths least prepared to cope with what happens post-burst. So far, Disney has shown no signs of allowing ESPN the kind of red ink on their balance sheet that it would take to keep the bubble intact.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
And for more good news...

ESPN Loses 621,000 Subscribers; Worst Month In Company History

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-621-000-subscribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916

Does that really mean anything other than that people are cutting the cord or switching to skinny bundles? ESPN seems to be an inviolate part of the basic cable package. IOW, this seems to be driven by the desire to avoid large cable bills in general, and not about ESPN in particular.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,884
Does that really mean anything other than that people are cutting the cord or switching to skinny bundles? ESPN seems to be an inviolate part of the basic cable package. IOW, this seems to be driven by the desire to avoid large cable bills in general, and not about ESPN in particular.
I mean, does it really matter? It's money that ESPN has spent that won't end up coming in.

Sports rights prices are sort of like an insurance market: the cost is spread out across consumers and non-consumers alike due to the bundling model. The landscape is changing fast- the percentage of the country with cable has dropped a full percentage point each of the last few years, and that will likely accelerate some. And if ESPN went a la carte it'd be too expensive for people.

And as pointed out above, their costs are locked in for a good while, while subscriber revenue will continue to drop. It's a shame cycle that i don't know how they get out of.
 

cgori

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2004
4,007
SF, CA
It's a double-edged sword for ESPN - in an expanding market of cable/satellite consumers their omnipresence in the channel lineups meant they always got a part of the growth. If subscription bases start contracting, they also participate (almost fully 1:1) in the contraction...

Their spending model for sports rights seemed to assume a constantly growing market, and if that assumption is violated, then their model is busted.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
So if we're very conservative and project that ESPN continues to lose 3 million subscribers a year -- well below the rate that they are currently losing subscribers -- then the household numbers would look like this over the next five years:

2017: 86 million subscribers

2018: 83 million subscribers

2019: 80 million subscribers

2020: 77 million subscribers

2021: 74 million subscribers

At 74 million subscribers -- Outkick's projection for 2021 based on the past five years of subscriber losses -- ESPN would be bringing in just over $6.2 billion a year in yearly subscriber fees at $7 a month. At $8 a month, assuming the subscriber costs per month keep climbing, that's $7.1 billion in subscriber revenue. Both of those numbers are less than the yearly rights fees cost in 2017. (Remember that these yearly rights fee costs will keep rising in the years ahead too).

Uh oh.

It seems pretty clear that within five years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they've committed for sports rights.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-another-555-000-subscribers-per-nielsen-112916
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Without knowing much about the industry in general, is it reasonable to assume they will lose 15 million subscribers over the next five years? The trend is certainly towards cable cutting but I assume there has to be some sort of steady state where it will level off from people, generally in older demographics I would presume, that keep cable because they aren't the most technologically savvy. Whether it's at 15 million less than it is currently, I'm not sure.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
Are the cable companies willing to settle for a steady state, though, and what happens to the cable companies in ten or fifteen years as more and more of the older customers begin to pass away?

I would think that an alternative approach would be for the cable companies to offer a much more limited offering of channels at a cheaper price in an effort to retain or even bring back those customers who are capable/technologically competent enough to cut the cord. And, if the cable companies offer a reduced package as a way to expand their customer base, wouldn't the older customers jump at the chance?

I'm pretty sure that ESPN is the most expensive network included with standard cable packages. It is an obvious candidate to get cut.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
I think it largely depends how many people care about having ESPN as part of their cable package. I know I like it for the live sports but can do without most of the other stuff save for a few programs that I enjoy but certainly wouldn't miss. I think the general takeaway, which is probably obvious from the article, is that ESPN needs to find some way to alter its revenue model. Do they do a sports package? A Netflix-like model? There are certainly options but I imagine they have a lot of people that are pulling them in several directions, from the cable companies to Disney to viewers.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
I'm pretty sure that ESPN is the most expensive network included with standard cable packages. It is an obvious candidate to get cut.
That and regional sports networks. I'd pay for NESN for example, but not ESPN if I could pick and choose. I guess I'd lose Sox games on Sunday Night Baseball, and Monday Night Football games the Pats were on. All the other live sports on there I don't really care about enough to pay for. I think I could live like that pretty easily.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
I'm pretty sure that ESPN is the most expensive network included with standard cable packages. It is an obvious candidate to get cut.
It's probably still the most watched though. Even DirecTV Now's base package includes ESPN and ESPN2.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
It had a couple other errors too, it had the Redskins record at 6-5. The replies were kind of funny.
 

VBSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
354
Virginia Beach, VA
This article from Barron's raises the question whether Disney should sell or spin off ESPN as the subscriber losses are a drag on Disney's stock price.

The ESPN fears are hurting Disney’s stock, which is down 5% this year, even as other media stocks have rallied. The stock slide explains the interest in separating Disney and ESPN. Some investors think that an ESPN-free Disney would jump in value.

The idea was raised by media mogul John Malone last month. Today, analysts at RBC Capital expanded on the idea. “The power of Disney isn’t in its sports,” analyst Steven Cahall wrote in a note to clients on Monday.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Remember when ESPN made a big point of saying it wasn't going down the pop culture rabbit hole? Coming soon: A fantasy league based on The Bachelor
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
Per ESPN today, the list of Deflategate punishments included BB getting fined by the NFL.
 

Thetoddwalker

New Member
May 11, 2011
445
New Orleans, LA
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-will-lose-75-million-televising-raiders-texans-010217

Every other network that carries the NFL -- NBC, CBS, and Fox -- has their playoff games or the Super Bowl, which rotates between NBC, CBS and Fox each three years, included within their yearly rights fee. Except for ESPN, which pays an extra $100 million for one crappy wild card game.

But, wait, it gets worse.

ESPN can only make around $25 million airing this wild card game.

So ESPN will lose $75 million televising one playoff football game.
 

Thetoddwalker

New Member
May 11, 2011
445
New Orleans, LA
Does having it also on ABC help defray the costs a little or is it already figured in?
I would assume that helps some, although I have no clue. It just amazes me how much ESPN bends over for the NFL and they are continually rewarded with shit games and a terrible playoff game, all while shelling out more for the right to air a playoff game. At some point, they will have to stop being submissive to the NFL.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
I would assume that helps some, although I have no clue. It just amazes me how much ESPN bends over for the NFL and they are continually rewarded with shit games and a terrible playoff game, all while shelling out more for the right to air a playoff game. At some point, they will have to stop being submissive to the NFL.
Submissive is an understatement.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
This probably doesn't include the value of all of the "look, there's Cammie from The Bachelor and over there is Jimmy Kimmel" cutaways. And the giant dancing ads for their other shows covering the bottom third of the screen
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
Didn't see this posted - Mike Greenberg re-upped for $6.5 million a year, making him one of ESPN's highest-paid personalities.

http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/mike-greenberg-now-one-of-top-paid-personalities-at-espn-according-to-jim-miller.html

This almost certainly has to mean that the rumors are true of Greenberg likely fronting a new ESPN morning show (think a sports version of Good Morning America) to replace SportsCenter - he's not getting paid that kind of money for another four years of Mike & Mike. I could see Greenberg moving up and Mike Golic Jr. joining his father on the radio show.
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,707
Didn't see this posted - Mike Greenberg re-upped for $6.5 million a year, making him one of ESPN's highest-paid personalities.

http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/mike-greenberg-now-one-of-top-paid-personalities-at-espn-according-to-jim-miller.html

This almost certainly has to mean that the rumors are true of Greenberg likely fronting a new ESPN morning show (think a sports version of Good Morning America) to replace SportsCenter - he's not getting paid that kind of money for another four years of Mike & Mike. I could see Greenberg moving up and Mike Golic Jr. joining his father on the radio show.
I cannot imagine anything worse than the proposition of Golic & Golic. If that's an actual idea that ESPN is considering, they're even stupider and more fucked than we ever thought.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I cannot imagine anything worse than the proposition of Golic & Golic. If that's an actual idea that ESPN is considering, they're even stupider and more fucked than we ever thought.
It's not my cup of tea, but Golic Jr. was decent the few times I heard him filling in for his father on Mike & Mike. Golic & Golic could actually be an Ok show (as national ESPN radio shows go) if they stuck to sports and dropped the tired act of playing off Golic Sr.'s weight and status as a former athlete vs. Greenberg's metrosexual ways and supposed lack of athletic ability.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Berman is going, going ... but not quite gone

Berman, a six-time National Sportscaster of the Year honoree, will remain as ESPN's host of NFL Primetime highlights after the NFL championship week games and the Super Bowl, and will have a role on Monday Night Countdown, offering opinion and perspective on historical events in the NFL. He will also call an MLB division series for ESPN Radio, and be part of the ESPY awards.
Berman will also make appearances on-air in other capacities and serve in other public-facing roles for the company, ESPN said in a statement. He will no longer host the NFL draft or Major League Baseball's Home Run Derby.
http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/18413458/chris-berman-leaving-espn-nfl-host-role-remains-network-new-deal
 

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
7,047
Auburn, MA
I cannot imagine anything worse than the proposition of Golic & Golic. If that's an actual idea that ESPN is considering, they're even stupider and more fucked than we ever thought.
Golic & Golic? No no no. The ad wizards are salivating at calling it "The All New Mike & Mike™".

Chris Berman retires, but gets phony role to soften his forced retirement

I'm going to miss his Academy award winning acting during the NFL Draft.

"I've got a hunch (IE producers scouring Twitter) that the RAIDERS might pick Johnny Wishbone from Big State U"